Tuesday 27 February 2024

Bombay HC: Magistrate Can't Order Imprisonment For More Than 12 Months' Default In Maintenance In A Single Application

The issue has already been settled by division bench of this Court in the case of Gorakshnath Khandu Bagal (supra) and in one application 12 defaults can be clubbed together and after every 12 defaults a separate application will have to be filed, and as such, the Magistrate may impose imprisonment for term of 12 which is the outer limit. However, it needs to be noted that for the subsequent default, a separate application can be filed for which separate imprisonment can be imposed subject to the limitation prescribed by the proviso that the same is filed within a period of one year from date which it becomes due. {Para 22}

23. Now coming to the facts of the present case, upon query by this

Court, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that the issuance of warrant was pursuant to the application dated 27th July, 2023 annexed at Page 57 of the Petition. Perusal of the application indicates that the pleading is that there is default of 59 months and the intermittent payments made by the Petitioner were set out. Considering the proviso to Section 125(3) of CR.P.C, it was incumbent upon the Metropolitan Magistrate to first consider whether the application has been filed in respect of default of monthly maintenance for period of 12 months preceding the application, which was not done. The impugned order does not indicate any finding on the aspect of period of default and it is only observed that there is default of 47 months when the application states that there is default of 59 months. The Petitioner has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for period of 47 months for default of 47 months without noticing the outer limit on power of the Magistrate to impose sentence of imprisonment which is set out in the proviso to sub section (3) of Section 125.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.2435 OF 2024

J Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 26, 2024

Print Page

Monday 26 February 2024

Supreme Court: Delay Occurred In Filing Criminal Appeal Against Acquittal Under S.378 CrPC Can Be Condoned Under Limitation Act

In the present case, there is no such exclusionary

provision under Section 378 of CrPC, or at any other

place in the Code. The benefit of Section 5 read with

Sections 2 and 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can therefore

be availed in an appeal against acquittal. There is no

force in the contentions raised by the appellants as

regards the non-application of Section 5 of the Limitation

Act in the present case and the appeal is therefore

dismissed.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024

(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 2052 OF 2017)

MOHD ABAAD ALI & ANR. Vs DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE PROSECUTION INTELLIGENCE

Author: SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J.

Citation:  2024 INSC 125.

Dated: February 20, 2024.

Print Page

Supreme Court Directs litigants to Mention Details Of Previous Bail Applications & Orders In All Bail Pleas

 In our opinion, to avoid any confusion in future it would be

appropriate to mandatorily mention in the application(s) filed for grant of bail:

(1) Details and copies of order(s) passed in the

earlier bail application(s) filed by the petitioner which

have been already decided.

(2) Details of any bail application(s) filed by the

petitioner, which is pending either in any court, below the

court in question or the higher court, and if none is

pending, a clear statement to that effect has to be made.

This court has already directed vide order

passed in Pradhani Jani’s case (supra) that all bail

applications filed by the different accused in the same FIR

should be listed before the same Judge except in cases

where the Judge has superannuated or has been

transferred or otherwise incapacitated to hear the matter.

The system needs to be followed meticulously to avoid any

discrepancies in the orders.

In case it is mentioned on the top of the bail

application or any other place which is clearly visible, that

the application for bail is either first, second or third and so

on, so that it is convenient for the court to appreciate the

arguments in that light. If this fact is mentioned in the order,

it will enable the next higher court to appreciate the

arguments in that light.

(3) The registry of the court should also annex a

report generated from the system about decided or

pending bail application(s) in the crime case in question.

The same system needs to be followed even in the case of

private complaints as all cases filed in the trial courts are

assigned specific numbers (CNR No.), even if no FIR

number is there.

(4) It should be the duty of the Investigating

Officer/any officer assisting the State Counsel in court to

apprise him of the order(s), if any, passed by the court with

reference to different bail applications or other

proceedings in the same crime case. And the counsel

appearing for the parties have to conduct themselves truly

like officers of the Court. {Para 20}

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO._303 OF 2024

KUSHA DURUKA  Vs THE STATE OF ODISHA 

Author: RAJESH BINDAL, J.

Dated: January 19, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 46.

Print Page

Sunday 25 February 2024

Supreme Court: Judge Can't Retain Case File and deliver judgment After retirement

  One of the contentions raised in these appeals is

that on 17th April, 2017, the learned Single Judge

pronounced only one line order declaring the operative

part. The learned Judge demitted office on 26th May, 2017

and a detailed judgment was made available only on 23rd

October, 2017, nearly 5 months after the learned Judge

demitted the office. On these facts, there is no

dispute. {Para 5}

6. The operative part was pronounced on 17th April,

2017. There were five weeks available for the learned

Judge to release the reasoned judgment till the date on

which he demitted office. However, the detailed judgment

running into more than 250 pages has come out after a

lapse of 5 months from the date on which the learned

Judge demitted the office. Thus, it is obvious that even

after the learned Judge demitted the office, he assigned

reasons and made the judgment ready. According to us,

retaining file of a case for a period of 5 months after

demitting the office is an act of gross impropriety on

the part of the learned Judge. We cannot countenance

what has been done in this case.

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.829-830 OF 2024

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) Nos.2210-2211 of 2024

@ Diary No.29911 of 2018)

STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

CBI CHENNAI  VS. NARESH PRASAD AGARWAL & ANR. 

Author: ABHAY S.OKA, J.

Dated: February 13, 2024.

Citation: 2024 INSC 120.

Print Page