Criminal Law : Landmark Decisions

 Criminal Law : Landmark Decisions 

Introduction

Criminal law has immense importance for legal practitioners and even for anyone who is governed by law, including citizens.  "Writers on English legal history have often mentioned that in early law there was no clear distinction between criminal and civil offences. The two have been called ‘a viscous intermixture’, and it has been explained that the affinity between tort and crime is not in the least surprising when we remember how late in the history of law there emerged any clear conception of a difference between them". [Refer "Kenny's Outlines of Criminal Law" by J.W. Cecil Turner, 2013, Cambridge University Press]

Here are some important decisions useful for those interested in reading about criminal law.

In the case of Salma v. State [2016] GCtR 5966 (Delhi) it was held that victim also has right to move the Court concerned for cancellation of bail in case of imminent – real threat. 

In case of Surender v. State of NCTD [2016] GCtR 5967 (Delhi), the case was related to allegations of robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt under S.397 of IPC, 1860. In this case, about the accused, his presence at the spot along with other accused has not been established beyond reasonable doubt; he was not arrested at the spot. Witness also did not state if said accused was armed with a knife or had attempted to stab the victim. Accused was acquitted of offence under S.397 of IPC, 1860.

The phrase used in Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is "summon any person as a witness, or examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness, or recall and re-examine any person already examined". In the case of JBA Enterprises Pvt Ltd v. State [2016] GCtR 5968 (Delhi), it was held that under Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a witness can be examined, re-examined or further examined by the Court at any stage of the proceedings. It was seen that no explanation was given by the petitioners as to why the so called “so many important questions” were not asked from witness when he was under cross-examination about three years ago. It was held that a witness cannot be asked to step into the witness box again and again with every change of the counsel for the opposite party.

In the important decision of Lalita Kumari v. Govt of UP [2013] GCtR 210 (SC), it has been held that mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will not be in contravention of Article 21 of the Constitution. It was also held that the requirements of launching an investigation under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are higher than the requirement under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

In the case of Naveen Ahuja v. State [2016] GCtR 5969 (Delhi), the order passed by Competent Authority denying grant of parole was set aside. Even if a person has obtained parole and furlough earlier, he can be granted parole again on certain grounds. It has been held that a person in long incarceration is entitled to be released on parole for a month in a year to re-establish social ties and for physical and mental well being. 

Supreme Court : 10 Important Decisions of May 2024 : Part 1

Supreme Court : Ten (10) Important Decisions of May 2024 : Part 1

In Bar of Indian Lawyers v. DK Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases [2024] GCtR 1344 (SC), it has been held that services provided by Advocates are not covered under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. "Services hired or availed of an Advocate would be that of a contract ‘of personal service’ and would therefore stand excluded from the definition of “service” contained in the section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As a necessary corollary, a complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against Advocates practising Legal Profession would not be maintainable under the CP Act, 2019."

In the case of Child in Conflict with Law v. State of Karnataka [2024] GCtR 1352 (SC), it has been held that the provision of Section 14(3) of the  Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, providing for the period of 3 months for completion of a preliminary assessment under Section 15 of the Act, is not mandatory. The same is held to be directory.

In Bhikchand v. Shamabai Dhanaraj Gugale [2024] GCtR 1350 (SC) it was reiterated that "if at a court auction sale in execution of a decree, the properties are purchased by a bona fide purchaser who is a stranger to the court proceedings, the sale in his favour is protected and he cannot be asked to restitute the property to the judgment debtor if the decree is set aside. The policy which prompts the extension of protection to the strangers who purchase at court auctions is based on a need to ensure that proper price is fetched at a court auction. The special protection afforded to a stranger who purchases at an execution sale is not extended to an assignee of the decree-holder auction purchaser. Persons who purchase at a court auction who are strangers to the decree are afforded protection by the court because they are not in any way connected with the decree. The reasons which prompt the courts to protect strangers who purchase at court auction sales also do not apply to assignees or purchasers from a decree-holder auction purchaser." It was also explained that "the execution of a decree by sale of the entire immovable property of the judgment debtor is not to penalise him but the same is provided to grant relief to the decree holder and to confer him the fruits of litigation."

In M/s Embio Ltd v. DGFT [2024] GCtR 1336 (SC) it was held that Section 11 (2) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 is a penal provision. It must be strictly construed.

In Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen [2024] GCtR 1335 (SC) issue arose was what is the implication of non-reporting of the seizure forthwith to the jurisdictional Magistrate as provided under Section 102(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?  [page 2, para 2] or does delayed reporting of the seizure to the Magistrate vitiate the seizure order altogether? [page 2, para 2]. It has been concluded that the "line of precedents which have taken the position that ‘seizure orders’ are vitiated for delay in compliance with the reporting obligation are declared to be manifestly erroneous and are accordingly, overruled." [page 12, para 17]

In Tapas Guha v. Union of India [2024] GCtR 1329 (SC) it was held that "while acknowledging the importance of infrastructure development, it is paramount that such projects proceed in harmony with environmental laws to prevent irreparable damage to ecosystems and biodiversity. The requirement for Environmental Clearance serves as a crucial safeguard against unchecked exploitation of natural resources and helps uphold the principles of sustainable development- which safeguards the interests of both present and future generations."

In Amanatullah Khan v. Commissioner of Police [2024] GCtR 1284 (SC) on the issue of Minor Relatives and Inclusion in History Sheet, it has been commented while dealing with Standing Order No.L&O/54/2022 issued by Delhi Police Commissioner that "amended Standing Order that in the column “relations and connections”, it has been decided that identities of only those persons shall be reflected who can afford the history sheeter/bad character shelter, when the offender is running/wanted by the police and it shall also include names of his associates in crime, abettors and receivers. The amended Standing Order emphatically says that no details of any minor relatives, i.e., son, daughter, siblings shall be recorded anywhere in the History Sheet unless there is evidence that such minor, has or earlier had, afforded shelter to the offender." Ultimately, the criminal appeal filed by Amanatuallah Khan was disposed of modifying the decision of Hon'ble Delhi HC.

In the case of Chander Bhan v. Mukhtiar Singh [2024] GCtR 1273 (SC) while dealing with issue of Lis Pendens and equity, it was held that "the object underlying the doctrine of lis pendens is for maintaining status quo that cannot be affected by an act of any party in a pending litigation. The objective is also to prevent multiple proceedings by parties in different forums. The principle is based on equity and good conscience." There can be no doubt that even if Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is not applicable in its strict sense in certain cases, then too the principles of lis-pendens, which are based on justice, equity and good conscience, would certainly be applicable.

In the case of Shankar v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1267 (SC) on the issue of S.319 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 it was explained that "the degree of satisfaction required to exercise power under Section 319 is well settled. The evidence before the trial court should be such that if it goes unrebutted, then it should result in the conviction of the person who is sought to be summoned. The degree of satisfaction that is required to exercise power under Section 319 is much stricter, considering that it is a discretionary and an extra-ordinary power. Only when the evidence is strong and reliable, can the power be exercised. It requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity."

In the case of Sharif Ahmed v. State of UP [2024] GCtR 1232 (SC), the important issue of non bailable warrants and completion of chargesheet was clarified. It was held that while there are no comprehensive set of guidelines for the issuance of nonbailable warrants, it can be observed that non bailable warrants should not be issued, unless the accused is charged with a heinous crime, and is likely to evade the process of law or tamper/destroy evidence. The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence.

You can download full text (PDF) Copies of all these judgments free of cost from Linkedin Page of GCtR Legal Updates. 

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.