1. Amrik Singh v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]
Hire Purchase Agreement - if financer takes back motor vehicle due to default in payment of installment, no process could be issued against the financer u/s 395 IPC on the basis of exaggeration version of the complainant. Sardar Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850 Referred
Hire Purchase Agreement - Re-possession of vehicle on hire purchase agreement does not amount to criminal offence of 379 IPC. Charanjit Singh Chadha v. Sudhir Mehra, AIR 2001 SC 3721 Referred
Hire Purchase Agreement - In an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and ownership remains with the latter. Thus, in case the vehicle is seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is re-possessing the goods owned by him. Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma, 2012 (4) ACC 697 Referred
2. Nitin Kumar Tayal v. CBI [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]
Contradiction and exaggeration cannot be considered at the stage of framing of charge.
Charge - At the time of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and Court is not required to appreciate whether the material produced is sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 4 (c) - a "charge" includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one. As per Law a charge may be a precise formulation of a specific accusation made against a person of offence alleged to have been committed by him. The main purpose of framing charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial.
Laws for quashing of charge/s and duty of court while framing of charge.
Judge while framing charge under section 269 of Cr.P.C. is obliged to scan the evidence collected during investigation for limited purpose for satisfying himself as to whether there are sufficient grounds to presume that accused has committed offence as is alleged. For the purpose of framing of charge, therefore, the Judge has to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed and that on the basis of said materials there is a reasonable probability of accused being found guilty of the offence as alleged. If the answer is in affirmative, the judge will be at liberty to presume "that the accused has committed an offence". Charge is first notice to the accused of an accusation made against him. It should be conveyed to him in sufficient clearness and certainty as to what the prosecution intends to prove and with which case the accused is to meet.
Ranbir Penal Code - Section 188 - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Court cannot take cognizance on police report for violation of Section 188 RPC unless a complaint in writing is made by the competent Public Servant who has issued promulgation or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.
J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 - Cognizance of Offence -Section 22 debars court from taking cognizance without report being filed by competent authority.
Ranbir Penal Code - Section 188 - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Essentials:
1. That there must be an order promulgated by the public servant;
2. That the public servant must have been fully empowered to promulgate such order;
3. That the person having knowledge of such order and directed by such order;
(a) to abstain from certain act; or
(b) to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, has disobeyed such direction.
4. That such disobedience causes or intends to cause;
(i) Obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it, to any person lawfully employed; or
(ii) Danger to human life, health or safety
(iii) A riot or affray.
Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 (Jammu & Kashmir) - S.22 - Cognizance of Offence - Section 13 deals with Fixation of Price of bricks by the Government for the whole State or for different areas thereof and different prices may be fixed for different kinds of bricks having regard to the weight, size and compressive strength of bricks. Section 14 of the Act, specifies Quality of Bricks manufactured by the licenced kiln owner which shall conform to the standards set for such product by the Indian Bureau of Standards. Section 16 deals with Sale Bill that every consignment of bricks whether carried by vehicles, carts or any other mode, shall invariably be accompanied by a valid sale bill as prescribed under law in force. Section 21 defines Penalties; that if any person contravenes or abets contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with the fine which may extend to fifty thousand or with both. From bare perusal of section 22, it is clear that cognizance of offences under sections of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 can be taken by the Court on the report filed by the licensing authority or any other person duly authorized by the government in this behalf. But in present case, it is not so as no such report has been filed by licensing authority or any other person duly authorized by the government.
Charge - At the time of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and Court is not required to appreciate whether the material produced is sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 4 (c) - a "charge" includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one. As per Law a charge may be a precise formulation of a specific accusation made against a person of offence alleged to have been committed by him. The main purpose of framing charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial.
Judge while framing charge under section 269 of Cr.P.C. is obliged to scan the evidence collected during investigation for limited purpose for satisfying himself as to whether there are sufficient grounds to presume that accused has committed offence as is alleged. For the purpose of framing of charge, therefore, the Judge has to consider judicially whether on consideration of the materials on record, it can be said that the accused has been reasonably connected with the offence alleged to have been committed and that on the basis of said materials there is a reasonable probability of accused being found guilty of the offence as alleged. If the answer is in affirmative, the judge will be at liberty to presume "that the accused has committed an offence". Charge is first notice to the accused of an accusation made against him. It should be conveyed to him in sufficient clearness and certainty as to what the prosecution intends to prove and with which case the accused is to meet.
3. Rachpal Singh v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Complaint has been defined in Section 4(e) Cr.PC, which means allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include the report of police officer. So police cannot lodge FIR and investigate the matter in view of this definition.Ranbir Penal Code - Section 188 - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Court cannot take cognizance on police report for violation of Section 188 RPC unless a complaint in writing is made by the competent Public Servant who has issued promulgation or of some other public servant to whom he is subordinate.
J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 - Cognizance of Offence -Section 22 debars court from taking cognizance without report being filed by competent authority.
Ranbir Penal Code - Section 188 - Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant - Essentials:
1. That there must be an order promulgated by the public servant;
2. That the public servant must have been fully empowered to promulgate such order;
3. That the person having knowledge of such order and directed by such order;
(a) to abstain from certain act; or
(b) to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, has disobeyed such direction.
4. That such disobedience causes or intends to cause;
(i) Obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it, to any person lawfully employed; or
(ii) Danger to human life, health or safety
(iii) A riot or affray.
Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 (Jammu & Kashmir) - S.22 - Cognizance of Offence - Section 13 deals with Fixation of Price of bricks by the Government for the whole State or for different areas thereof and different prices may be fixed for different kinds of bricks having regard to the weight, size and compressive strength of bricks. Section 14 of the Act, specifies Quality of Bricks manufactured by the licenced kiln owner which shall conform to the standards set for such product by the Indian Bureau of Standards. Section 16 deals with Sale Bill that every consignment of bricks whether carried by vehicles, carts or any other mode, shall invariably be accompanied by a valid sale bill as prescribed under law in force. Section 21 defines Penalties; that if any person contravenes or abets contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with the fine which may extend to fifty thousand or with both. From bare perusal of section 22, it is clear that cognizance of offences under sections of the J&K Brick Kiln (Regulations), Act 2010 can be taken by the Court on the report filed by the licensing authority or any other person duly authorized by the government in this behalf. But in present case, it is not so as no such report has been filed by licensing authority or any other person duly authorized by the government.
4. Rano Devi v. Ram Lal [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XVIII Rule 17 & 17 A - Court may recall and examine witnesses - Production of evidence not previously known or which could not be produced despite due diligence - Court has the power to recall any witness already examined and examine him again, for just decision of case or in order to decide the real controversy of case; and Court has also power to allow any party to produce the fresh evidence, which he could not produce despite due diligence. In administration of justice, especially at the level of trial court, it is duty of Court to do complete justice by allowing the parties to produce all evidence on which they rely. Liberal construction of procedural laws is to be applied at the level of Muffasil Court, where litigants are not so much vigilant of their cases. Procedural laws /rules are conceived to aid the attainment of justice; if a stringent application of rules is applied, it will hinder the justice than serve the demands of justice. Where a rigid application of procedural law will result failure or miscarriage of justice, then its strict compliance may be relaxed. Technicalities may be thus disregarded in order to resolve the case.
Comments
Post a Comment