Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Discretion given under Section 88 to the Court does not confer any right on a person, who is present in the Court rather it is the power given to the Court to facilitate his appearance, which clearly indicates that use of word ‘may’ is discretionary and it is for the Court to exercise its discretion when situation so demands. [Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India]
Section 88 of the Cr.P.C. does not confer any right on any person, who is present in a Court. Discretionary power given to the Court is for the purpose and object of ensuring appearance of such person in that Court or to any other Court into which the case may be transferred for trial. [Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India]
Section 397 of Cr.P.C empowers the Sessions Judge to call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any subordinate criminal court situate within its jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such subordinate Court. [Rajendra Rajoriya vs Jagat Narain Thapak]
The powers of the revisionary court have to be cumulatively understood in consonance with Sections 398, 399 and 401 of Cr.P.C. [Rajendra Rajoriya vs Jagat Narain Thapak]
The word ‘may’ used in Section 88 confers a discretion on the Court whether to accept a bond from an accused from a person appearing in the Court or not. [Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India]
The word used in Section 88 “any person” has to be given wide meaning, which may include persons, who are not even accused in a case and appeared as witnesses. [Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India]
When accused was issued warrant of arrest to appear in the Court and proceeding under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been initiated, he cannot be held to be a free agent to appear or not to appear in the Court. [Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India]
Whether it was obligatory for the Court to release the accused by accepting the bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. on the ground that he was not arrested during investigation or the Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 88 in rejecting the application filed by the appellant praying for release by accepting the bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. [Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India]
What was the import of the words ‘may’ used in Section 88. [Pankaj Jain Agencies Vs. Union of India]
Cognizance
At the stage of taking cognizance, the Magistrate is also not required to record elaborate reasons but the order should reflect independent application of mind by the Magistrate to the material placed before him. [Rajendra Rajoriya vs Jagat Narain Thapak]
The Magistrate while taking cognizance has to satisfy himself about the satisfactory grounds to proceed with the complaint and at this stage the consideration should not be whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. [Rajendra Rajoriya vs Jagat Narain Thapak]
Criminal Justice System
It is wrought in our constitutional tradition that we imbibe both substantive fairness as well as procedural fairness under our criminal justice system, in the sense of according procedural fairness, in the making of decisions which affect rights, interests and legitimate expectations, subject only to the clear manifestation of a contrary statutory intention. [Rajendra Rajoriya vs Jagat Narain Thapak]
Industrial Dispute Act, 1947
Even if the employer eventually succeeds in its appeal against his employee, in which such order was passed during the pendency of employer’s appeal, the employer continues to remain under legal obligation to comply with such order passed by the Court under Section 17-B of the Act in favour of the employee. [Rajeshwar Mahto v. Alok Kumar Gupta, G.M. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd; JT 2018 (2) SC 477]
An order passed under Section 17-B of Act does not merge with the final order passed in the appeal and being an independent order, it remains alive for enforcement. [Rajeshwar Mahto v. Alok Kumar Gupta, G.M. M/s Birla Corporation Ltd; JT 2018 (2) SC 477]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
When the statement of official witness is impaired due to infirmities, it is not safe to place reliance upon the same and pass conviction order against the accused. [Union of India Vs. Leen Martin, 01-02-2018]Precedent
The Magistrates across India have been guided on number of occasions by concrete precedents of this Court to exercise utmost caution while applying their judicious mind in this regard. Unfortunately, we may note that number of cases which are brought before us reflects otherwise. [Rajendra Rajoriya vs Jagat Narain Thapak]
Comments
Post a Comment