Typing Passage Sample for Allahabad High Court, APS Skill Test, ARO Skill Test:
Sample: 3 & 4
Supreme Court Case (2003) 2356, 1998 (2) ALD Cri 363, 1998 CriLJ 3845
Allahabad High Court
A.S. Bindra vs. Senior Superintendent Of Police decided on on 16 December, 1997
JUDGMENT Giridhar Malaviya, J.
1. I had the advantage of going through the elaborate and detailed Judgment prepared by my learned brother Hon. B. K. Sharma, J. on the preliminary objection. While I am in total agreement with him on the points covered by his Judgment and endorse his conclusion I would like to briefly add a lew lines of my own, which are only to summarise the conclusions of Hon. brother B. K. Sharma,. J.
2. The Judgment of seven Judges' Full Bench in the case of Ram Pal Yadav v. State of U.P. (1989 Cri LJ 1013) is clear and cateogorical that unless there is a matter pending before the subordinate Court no application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. can be entertained by the High Court. In other words it means that till the stage of investigation of a Criminal case and thereafter till the filing of the charge sheet and taking cognizance of the offence by the Court, no application can be made in the High Court for quashing the First Information Report or investigation under Section 482, Cr.P.C. However in very exceptional cases the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked either for quashing the F'irst Information Report or for staying the investigation.
3. In the cases of the Supreme Court which have been delivered after the Judgment of the Full Bench in Ram Lal's case (1989 Cri LJ 1013) (supra), none of the Supreme Court cases considered the question whether jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked under Section 482, Cr.P.C. while a criminal case was still being investigated. The Supreme Court was, therefore, not deciding this point in any of the subsequent Judgments and any casual observation that either in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in a suitable case the High Court could grant relief was just an observation of the Supreme Court to indicate that the High Court could exercise its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere in a suitable matter pending investigation. This observation only meant that power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised in some proceedings arising out of a complaint etc. when the matter was pending in some Court; and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised when the matter had till then not reached the Court but was still under investigation by a police officer. The Judgment and observations of the Supreme Court arc not at all contrary to the Judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Lai and it cannot be said that the said observation of the Supreme Court permit any High Court to exercise its powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. when the matter is still under investigation. The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, has quoted Ram Lal's Judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Janta Dal v. H. S. Chauhan AIR 1993 SC 892 (paragraph 155 page 926). This paragraph in the aforesaid case has been quoted only to indicate that the similar view which the Supreme Court was taking had already been taken by the High Court in the said Full Bench. As such case of Ram Lal has been given a seal of approval by the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court. 605 Words
3. In the cases of the Supreme Court which have been delivered after the Judgment of the Full Bench in Ram Lal's case (1989 Cri LJ 1013) (supra), none of the Supreme Court cases considered the question whether jurisdiction of the High Court could be invoked under Section 482, Cr.P.C. while a criminal case was still being investigated. The Supreme Court was, therefore, not deciding this point in any of the subsequent Judgments and any casual observation that either in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482, Cr.P.C. in a suitable case the High Court could grant relief was just an observation of the Supreme Court to indicate that the High Court could exercise its inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere in a suitable matter pending investigation. This observation only meant that power under Section 482, Cr.P.C. could be exercised in some proceedings arising out of a complaint etc. when the matter was pending in some Court; and the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be exercised when the matter had till then not reached the Court but was still under investigation by a police officer. The Judgment and observations of the Supreme Court arc not at all contrary to the Judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Ram Lai and it cannot be said that the said observation of the Supreme Court permit any High Court to exercise its powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. when the matter is still under investigation. The Supreme Court, as a matter of fact, has quoted Ram Lal's Judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Janta Dal v. H. S. Chauhan AIR 1993 SC 892 (paragraph 155 page 926). This paragraph in the aforesaid case has been quoted only to indicate that the similar view which the Supreme Court was taking had already been taken by the High Court in the said Full Bench. As such case of Ram Lal has been given a seal of approval by the aforesaid Judgment of the Supreme Court. 605 Words
Sample: 4
(2021)01ILR A15
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BACHCHOO LAL, J.
THE HON’BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2017
Dharmendra Rajbhar ...Accused Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party
Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Shamsher Singh, Sri Ravi Ratan Kumar Sinha, Swati Agrawal Srivastava, Sri Virendra Singh
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A. Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860- Section 304 –B , 302- Charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act- Death by smothering- Elements of demand of dowry and harassment soon before death lacking - The presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act cannot attract and conviction under Section 304-B IPC cannot be held- Acquittal of the accused/in-laws of the charges under Sections 304-B, 498-A IPC and Section 4 Dowry Prohibition Act- Conviction of husband of deceased under section 302 of the IPC with recourse of Section 106 of the Evidence Act- held- unsustainable.
Evidence Law - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 101, Section 106- Prosecution has to establish guilt of the accused filtered of all reasonable prognosis favourable to accused to secure conviction and it is never relieved of its initial duty. It is only when the initial burden has been discharged by the prosecution that the defence of the accused has to be looked into. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be applied to fasten guilt on the accused, even if the prosecution has failed in its initial burden. Section 106 of the evidence act has to be read in conjunction with and not in derogation of Section 101 Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not relieve prosecution of it's primary and foremost duty to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts independent of weaknesses of the defence. The fact required to be proved was "within the special knowledge of an accused alone" and prosecution could not have known it by due care and diligence, that Section 106 can be resorted to by shifting burden on the accused to disclose that fact which is "in his special knowledge".
The prosecution is never relieved of its initial burden to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the prosecution cannot shift the burden on the accused, u/s 106 of the Evidence Act, without discharging its initial burden. However, where the facts are within the special knowledge of the accused and cannot be possibly explained by the prosecution, then the burden shifts on the accused to explain the said facts. 431 Words
0 Comments