Wednesday 12 June 2024

Summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or posts as a post is not a juridical person

 Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that by now it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Santosh Kumar vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. (supra) that summons in a criminal case to face trial cannot be issued against positions or post as a post is not juridical person hence, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has committed illegality by issuing summons against DGM Sail, M/s. RMD Gua Ore Mines more so when such post undisputedly does not even exist. Thus, taking cognizance by not naming any person who was responsible for the alleged criminal act is certainly not sustainable in law. {Para 6}


Cr.M.P. No. 2956 of 2022

M/s. Steel Authority of India Limited VsThe State of Jharkhand



Dated the 22nd April, 2024.
Print Page

Tuesday 11 June 2024

Whether motor accident claim tribunal can dismiss claim petition on the ground that driver of offending vehicle is not added as party to the petition?

Learned Tribunal may be right in arriving at the finding that the driver of ill fated vehicle is a necessary party, however, was not justified in dismissing the claim mainly on the ground that he has not been impleaded in the proceeding. It seems that learned Member of the Tribunal was oblivious of the provisions of Order I Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads as under :

Court may strike out or add parties The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit suit, be added. {Para 4}

5. This being the settled legal position, learned Member has committed serious error in dismissing the claim petition particularly when the claimants were unfortunate parents who lost their son aged about 22 years in motor vehicular accident. Utmost sensitivity to the cause of such nature is needed.


First Appeal No. 115/2012

Decided On: 14.02.2012

Sahebrao Tikaramji Gakhare and Ors. Vs. Lakhotia Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.N. Gilani, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0175/2012,2013ACJ 109 Bom

Print Page

Sunday 9 June 2024

Bombay HC: The court must award interest on maintenance amount

 The trial Courts are not awarding interest on maintenance amount. There is no any legal ban to award interest on that amount of maintenance. The husbands or fathers are many a times are not depositing the arrears of maintenance for years together. They have no fear or burden to payment of interest on that amount of maintenance. It is a serious legal mischief in mischief. Section 125 of the CrPC does not prohibit to wards maintenance. Therefore, Courts of District Judiciary are expected to award interest on the amount of maintenance, so that these weaker sections of the society will get their maintenance amount expeditiously. It will serve the purpose of speed justice. Thus, in order to secure their rights fully, effectively and speedily which is an object of justice interest must be awarded which is rationally expected. Their amount of maintenance shall not remain in the hands of the other side which deprives them for maximum period from it. Thus, it is now mandatory to award interest on the amount of maintenance for that this judgment shall be circulated to the District Judiciary of Maharashtra.


Criminal Revision Application No. 175 of 2023

Decided On: 10.05.2024

Prakash Vs. Vithabai and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3360/2024.

Print Page

Saturday 8 June 2024

Whether the Bail Court has jurisdiction to pass orders restraining the Police from arresting accused without passing interim bail orders?

The third referred issue in B.A. No. 4421/2022 (which is the 4th issue mentioned supra) is as to whether the Bail Court has jurisdiction to pass orders restraining the Police from arresting the accused without passing interim bail orders as per Sec.438(1) of the Cr.P.C. In the light of the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in para 52, more particularly, para 52.14, of Sushila Agarwal v. State (NCT, Delhi) & Anr. [MANU/SC/1538/2019 : (2020) 5 SCC 1, p.86] and paras 40 & 41 of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab [MANU/SC/0215/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 565, pp. 590-591], it is not right and legally correct for an Anticipatory Bail Court to pass orders or interim orders restraining the arrest of the accused or directing not to arrest the accused, etc. However, as categorically held in para 42 of Gurbaksh Singh's case supra [MANU/SC/0215/1980 : (1980) 2 SCC 565, p.591] and various other decisions, the Anticipatory Bail Court, in appropriate cases, will have the discretionary power to issue interim bail order/ad-interim bail order if the Court is convinced that it is so warranted, pending consideration of the main bail application. But, while considering passing of such interim bail orders, the Court should ensure strict conformity with the requirements of Sec.438. The last referred issue in B.A. No. 4421/2022 will also, thus, stand answered.

{Para 109}


Bail Appl. Nos. 4421 and 4983 of 2022

Decided On: 11.04.2023

Anu Mathew Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Alexander Thomas and C.S. Sudha, JJ.

Author: Alexander Thomas, J.

Citation:  MANU/KE/0926/2023.

Read full Judgment here:  Click here.

Print Page