Skip to main content

Magistrate may consider any further report given in supplementary charge-sheet, because it is also a police report

In Ahok Kr. Todi Vs. C.B.I., the Calcutta High Court dealt with framing of charges and held that -

Criminal P.C. 1973 – S. 216 (5) – Sanction – At the time of dealing with the Section 216(5) of Cr.P.C. the court is to see if any sanction has been given on same facts or not, irrespective of any offence.

Criminal P.C. 1973 – Ss. 226 & 227 – When the court shall frame charges – What are the factors to be considered by the court at the time of disposal of an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Held, Court should be very cautious in allowing an application Section 227 Cr.P.C. because without affording any opportunity to the prosecution to substantiate the allegation through witness, the accused gets an escape from the net of law. The Court is to see if any material for presumption is there or not. If the answer is affirmative, charge has to be framed.

Criminal P.C. 1973 – Ss. 190 (1) (b) r/w. 197 – Cognizance – Supplementary Charge-sheet – What should be the basis – If the supplementary charge-sheet is filed, whether the Court is bound to take cognizance only in respect of the offences as mentioned in supplementary charge-sheet ignoring the first charge-sheet or not – If the Sessions Judge is bound to take cognizance only in respect of the offences, which has been mentioned by the committal court – Held, When police submits supplementary charge-sheet disclosing in addition/alteration and deletion of any offence mentioned in charge-sheet at the first instance, the magistrate can take further cognizance in terms of Section 190(1)(b) read with Section 173 (5) of Cr.P.C., because 190(1)(b) can be invoked only in respect of a police report. Therefore, magistrate may consider any further report given in supplementary charge-sheet, because it is also a police report. Section 190(1)(b) does not say that magistrate cannot take cognizance further on the basis of supplementary charge-sheet. Otherwise Section 173(5) of Cr.P.C. shall remain in the statute only without any application.

Whether a direct/remote mental pressure associated with serious criminal intimidation be treated as an abetment to commit suicide? When and why a person commits suicide? Held, A person’s mind and body may react to trauma over a period time, perhaps days, weeks or months so the people suffering from a trauma react in different ways, suicide is the result of ‘psychotic’. An unbearable psychological pain arising largely from frustrated psychological needs. It is said there is a great deal of psychological pain in the world without suicide but there is no suicide without a great deal of psychological pain.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the CPC explained

Cause Title :  Ganesh Prasad vs Rajeshwar Prasad, SLP (C) NO. 28377 OF 2018, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14/3/2023 Corum : J. B. Pardiwala, J. Citied:  Revajeetu Builders and Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons and Others reported in (2009) 10 SCC 84 North Eastern Railway Administration, Gorakhpur v. Bhagwan Das reported in (2008) 8 SCC 511 P.A. Jayalakshmi v. H. Saradha and Others reported in (2009) 14 SCC 525 B.K. Narayana Pillai v. Parameswaran Pillai and Another reported in (2000) 1 SCC 712 A.K. Gupta and Sons Ltd. v. Damodar Valley Corporation reported in AIR 1967 SC 96 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Sanjeev Builders Private Limited and Another, Civil Appeal No. 5909 of 2022 dated 01.09.2022 Firm Sriniwas Ram Kumar v. Mahabir Prasad and Others reported in AIR 1951 SC 177 G. Nagamma and Another v. Siromanamma and Another reported in (1996) 2 SCC 25 Praful Manohar Rele v. Krishnabai Narayan Ghosalkar and Others reported in (2014...
Post a Comment
Read more

Interim order staying the operation of an impugned order vs quashment of an impugned order

In Deific Abode LLP vs Union of India & Ors., while discussing on the issue of interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order, the Calcutta High Court observed that :- These salient principles emerge: i. As per the law laid down in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd (supra) by the Supreme Court, the effect of an interim order staying the operation of an impugned order and the quashment of an impugned order are considerably different from one another. While the former merely ensures that the order impugned would not be operative from the date of the passing of the order of stay, without annihilating the said impugned order from existence, the latter ensures that such quashment results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date the impugned order was passed, with the impugned order ceasing to exist in the eyes of the law. ii. Quashment of such impugned order would revive the appeal before the appellate authority and would be con...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ruling on applicability of threshold limit for withholding obligation in relation to sale of immovable property

In Vinod Soni and others (Taxpayer) v. ITO, the issue before the Delhi Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was whether any withholding obligation triggers on the joint buyers if the cost of the immoveable property is more than specified limit of INR5M but the share of each co-owner is less than that value. Income tax laws cast an obligation on the buyer to withhold tax on payment to seller of consideration for transfer of immoveable property if value of consideration exceeds INR5M. The Tribunal held that in a case of joint acquisition of an immovable property by various co-owners, the threshold limit of withholding obligation (i.e. INR5M) is applicable with reference to share of each co-owner and not with reference to consideration of entire property. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted tax withholding demand raised on co-owners by the Tax Authority. Article referred: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/delhitrib/%24FILE/delhitrib.pdf
Post a Comment
Read more