Supreme Court: As per Order XII Rule 6 CPC, Admission Made In Criminal Case Can Be Used In Civil Proceedings

While dismissing the Second Appeal, the High Court took notice of the admissions made by the petitioner in the criminal proceedings and observed as under:-

"26. In the present case, learned Counsel for the appellant does not dispute the fact that, in the complaint dated 29thJuly 2009 lodged by him at PS.Jamia Nagar, which resulted in the registration of FIR178/2009. The appellant had indeed acknowledged the suit property to be owned by Respondent 1 and that he had been inducted into the suit property by Respondent 2 as caretaker. This admission finds place in the complaint as well as in the FIR. During the course of regarding of evidence in the criminal proceedings, following the FIR, the appellant, as PW-3, specifically admitted the fact of filing the aforesaid complaint by him at police station Jamia Nagar on 27thAugust 2009, resulting in the complaint being exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A. It is not the case of the appellant that, during the course of recording of the said evidence, there was any denial of the contents of the said FIR.

12. The entire debate revolves around the question whether the courts-below were justified to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs on the strength of the admission made by the petitioner in the course of the criminal proceedings and whether the trial court was justified to pass the final decree based on admission under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

17. On the aspect of admission on the part of the petitioner, three courts have assigned cogent reasons. We need not disturb the concurrent findings recorded by the three courts-below in this regard.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal C No. 19868/2022

Date of Order: 07.05.2026

Sheikh Abedin Vs. Iqbal Ahmed and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Citation:  MANU/SCOR/32097/2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence of eye witness of accident in motor accident claim petition when said witness was relative of claimant?

Second witness of the claimant is Balasaheb Bongane CW-3. He states that he was proceeding on his motorcycle and witnessed the offending jeep dashed against motor cycle of the deceased Dattarao. He states that, he noted jeep number and informed claimant no.3-Shailesh regarding the incident. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is relative of the claimants. He states that he noted number of offending vehicle after getting a pen from the owner of sugar cane juice shop. He states that he did not felt necessary to accompany deceased to the Hospital or he never informed police chowki or doctor regarding the vehicle number or incident. He never visited the police or gave his statement to the police. The Certified copy of his statement recorded in S.C.C. No.457 of 2018 is also placed on record of the Tribunal at Exhibit 15, wherein he states that he came to know about vehicle number from the mob gathered at the spot of accident. If the aforesaid evidence is taken into account, it is difficult to believe that accident occurred in presence of CW-3. Pertinently, CW-1 admits in his cross-examination that vehicle owner bears surname Karhale as claimants and he is resident of the village which is at a distance of 30 kilometers from village of the claimants. He admits that he had received information as to owner of the vehicle, but never disclosed it to any one prior to filing of the complaint. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether motor accident claim tribunal should rely on evidence of witness who is declared hostile in criminal court relating to same accident?

Mr. Choudhary, submits that evidence of eye witness is absolutely unreliable. They are got up witnesses. Perusal of evidence of CW 2 Santosh shows that he runs sugarcane juice shop nearby the place of accident and claims himself to be an eye witness. However, during his cross- examination he admitted that he cannot read and write. There is no provision of electric light at the spot of accident. He did not disclose offending vehicle number to any one till police approached him. He cannot tell as to whether it was head on collision between two vehicles as he was at the distance. All these admissions coupled with fact that he turned hostile before the criminal court makes his statement unreliable.

{Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Print Page

Whether the high court can treat suit or criminal case as pending before trial court if judgment was delivered on Roznama?

In the present case it is clear from the reports that though orally some judgments was pronounced on 14/01/2019 as quoted earlier and recorded in the Roznama, there is no such written judgment duly signed by the Presiding Officer is found in the file. The explanations were called from the concerned Presiding Officer by the Principal District and Sessions Judge. However, there is no satisfactory explanation coming forth. {Para 22}

27. Thus in sum and substance, there is no judgment and decree passed in the said civil suit by the learned Presiding Officer though recorded in the Roznama dated 14/01/2019. Such Roznama entry cannot be considered as judgment and decree as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. For the reasons recorded by us in CrWP No. 578 of 2022 dated 06/10/2022, we are constrained to allow this petition as per the prayer clause 'a'.

28. Considering the above unfortunate facts and the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the Roznama order dated 14/01/2019 in RCS No. 129 of 2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. Since there is no signed and dated judgment found on the record, we are unable to consider that the suit was disposed of on merit by the concerned Presiding Officer. Thus, we remand the said Civil Suit No. 129 of 2010 to the Civil Judge, Junior Division at Canacona with the direction that the suit be decided after hearing both the sides and in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the signed copy of this order is placed before it. It is made clear that both the parties shall co-operate with the learned Canacona Court in disposal of the said matter in the time frame fixed as above.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 418 of 2022

Hemantkumar Sadanand Naik Gaonkar and Ors. Vs. Pio Rogerio Salem Cotta and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.S. Sonak and Bharat P. Deshpande, JJ.

Author: Bharat P. Deshpande, J.

Decided On: 02.01.2023.

Citation:  MANU/MH/0016/2023

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to hear accused before condonation of delay in criminal case?

 The learned Judicial Magistrate did not apply his mind on the said averments. It did not issue any notice upon the appellant to show cause as to why the delay shall not be condoned. Before condoning the delay the appellant was not heard. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre and Others [(1995) 1 SCC 42] this Court held; "5. In our view, the High Court was perfectly justified in holding that the delay, if any, for launching the prosecution, could not have been condoned without notice to the respondents and behind their back and without recording any reasons for condonation of the delay. However, having come to that conclusion, it would have been appropriate for the High Court, without going into the merits of the case to have remitted the case to the trial court, with a direction to decide the application for condonation of delay afresh after hearing both sides. The High Court however, did not adopt that course and proceeded further to hold that the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offence in view of the application filed by the prosecution seeking permission of the Court to file a "supplementary charge- sheet" on the basis of an "incomplete charge-sheet" and quashed the order of the CJM dated 21-11-1986 on this ground also. This view of the High Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case is patently erroneous."{Para 9}

10. In view of the aforesaid decision, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that appellant was entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay could be condoned.

Supreme Court of India

P.K. Choudhury vs Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref) on 13 March, 2008

Author: S Sinha

Bench: S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether claimant in a motor accident case can prove his case by producing certified copy of deposition of witness recorded in a criminal case?

In all these authorities this Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the basic principle that is required to be established in motor accident claim petition, that the burden is on the claimant to prove the accident including the involvement of the vehicle/s, as the case may be. Here, in this case, in order to prove the said involvement of the vehicle owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2 the claimants have relied on police papers only. Important point to be noted is that the First Information Report is admittedly lodged by an eye witness i.e. Niraj Kothari, who was the rider of motorcycle, on which, deceased was the pillion rider. Claimants have not given any reason, as to why Niraj Kothari has been kept out of the witness box before the Tribunal. At this stage itself, it can also be considered that now the appellants intend to produce the certified copy of deposition of Niraj taken in criminal case. In fact, when in this case, he has not been examined, his deposition in criminal case cannot be read in evidence. From the said document it appears that he was examined before the criminal Court on 27.03.2018, whereas this petition was decided by the Tribunal on 31.03.2018. Even if, we take this fact liberally and allow the deposition of Niraj to be read in evidence in this case, yet in the examination-in-chief itself, he has merely stated that his vehicle was dashed by a bullet motorcycle, but then he has further stated, that he cannot give number of the bullet vehicle and he will not be about to identify the bullet rider. Surprisingly, though his First Information Report appears to have been exhibited before the Criminal Court, yet the prosecution has not resorted to the proceeding as contemplated under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, when it can be said that witness was not supporting the prosecution. Therefore, even after allowing such document to be produced on record, yet it cannot be stated that the involvement of the vehicle could be proved by the claimants.

14. As regards those applications, wherein the claimants intending to produce certified copies on record, it can be again said that no reason has been assigned by the claimants, as to why they could not produce these documents, when the matter was before the Tribunal. If they want to invoke the provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, the first and the foremost ingredient that is required to be considered is, that they were not having custody of that document or they could not procure it even after due diligence, when the matter was before the Tribunal. The reason, that has been tried to be stated that there was inadvertent omission on the part of their Advocate in not placing those documents on record. They have not come with a case that during the pendency of the claim petition they had given those documents in the custody of their Advocate but Advocate did not produce those documents on record. If the procurement of the documents is itself after the decision in the matter, then the reasons given by them cannot be said to be sufficient. Merely because they are the certified copies in another litigation they cannot be allowed to produce those documents on record, in order to fill up the lacuna in leading evidence by them before the Tribunal.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 396 of 2019, 

Decided On: 25.09.2019

 Kalpana Rajendra Kothari  Vs. Santosh Arvind Jangam and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vibha Kankanwadi, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/2713/2019,2020(2) MHLJ 561

Print Page

Kerala HC: Golden rules for framing of charge in Criminal case

A reading of the above charge itself would reveal that the charge is not framed in conformity with any of the relevant provisions of the code relating to framing of charge. Section 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('the Code', for short) provides that particulars as to time, place and person against whom the offence was committed shall be stated in the charge. Sub-section (1) of Section 212 of the Code reveals that the charge "SHALL" contain such particulars (as to the time and place of the alleged offence, and the person (if any) against whom, it was committed) as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. Section 218 of the Code provides that for every distinct offence of which any person is accused, there shall be a separate charge.

3. Section 211 of the Code deals with form of charges and contents of charge. The Form of Charge referred to in Section 211 of the Code is available in Form No. 32 in Schedule II of the Code. It reveals that the details of each offence are to be stated with reference to the particular accused who committed the offence and the person against whom such offence is committed. It also shows that if the charge is having two or more heads, each charge must be separately detailed. Legislature intended that the Court shall frame charge in such a way that the charge shall contain the necessary details of the distinct offence or offences which include date, time and place where the offence is committed and the person who committed the offence and the person against whom such offence is committed. But, the charge framed in this case is, evidently, not in compliance with the mandatory provisions contained in the Code and hence, it is illegal.

6. The charge framed by the Court below reveals that various offences are committed by 24 persons. Out of the 24, fourteen such persons alone are named in the charge and only they stood trial. Therefore, there are ten more unnamed persons who were allegedly involved in the crime. But, it is not discernible from the charge, as to which of the accused, (out of the 24 persons named and unnamed) committed the main offence under Section 307, IPC. It is only stated in the charge that the "accused" beat CW3 with iron crow bar and stabbed him with knife and inflicted injuries on CW1 to CW 3 and "all accused" committed the various offences. It is also not clear from the charge, against whom, out of CW1 to CW 3, offence under Section 307, IPC was committed and by which accused. This is the same state of affair, as far as all other offences in the charge are concerned.

7. The weapon used by each of the accused against each of the witness or witnesses is also not indicated in the charge. It is not stated as to which of the accused used which particular weapon and as against whom it was used. In short, there is no specific charge against any of the accused, for having committed any of the distinct offence or offences against any particular witness. It is also pertinent to note that none of the accused was in a position to know from the charge, whether he is tried for the substantive offence or whether the liability is cast under Section 149 of IPC.

8. There can be no doubt that the charge is too vague and ambiguous with respect to the various offences allegedly committed by each of the accused under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC. A general, vague statement of the nature made in this case by the Court below under the title, 'charge' does not constitute 'charge' under the provisions of the Code. The charge framed in this case is totally in violation of the mandatory requirements under the relevant provisions of the Code. The defects are not mere insignificant omissions or irregularities in the charge which can be ignored as immaterial under Section 215 of the Code. Those have caused gross failure of justice.

10. The Court shall also bear in mind that framing of charge shall not only give notice of the particulars of the offences to the accused, but it would also necessarily aid the Court to know what exactly the charge is and what the prosecution case is. But, it appears that because of the defective charge, the trial Court even failed to understand what the prosecution case is. In the absence of specifying the overt act committed by each of the accused against each of the witness, the Court was not able to appreciate either the prosecution case or the defence case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

Crl. A. No. 2204 of 2004

Decided On: 25.07.2006

Ramesan  Vs. State of Kerala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Hema, J.

Citation: 2007 CRLJ 1637 kerala,MANU/KE/0623/2006

Print Page

Whether the Appellate Court can add to or alter the charge in criminal case?

In Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0302/2004 : AIR 2004 SC 2078, this Court held:

Therefore, if during trial the Trial Court, on a consideration of broad probabilities of the case, based upon total effect of the evidence and documents produced is satisfied that any addition or alteration of the charge is necessary, it is free to do so, and there can be no legal bar to appropriately act as the exigencies of the case warrant or necessitate.

16. Such power empowering alteration/addition of charge(s), can also be exercised by the appellate court, in exercise of its powers Under Sections 385(2) and 386 Code of Criminal Procedure.{Para 15}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 46 and 171 of 2005

Decided On: 04.09.2012

 Bhimanna Vs.   State of Karnataka

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0720/2012,(2012) 9 SCC 650,AIR 2012 SC 3026

Print Page

Whether Appellate Court and the Revisional Court may pass a direction, that sentence granted to accused to run concurrently?

 It is settled position of the law that the direction to run the sentence concurrently may be passed by the Trial Court, Appellate Court and the Revisional Court.

13. Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Mani & Anr. vs. State of Kerala, has held that "when no direction is given by the trial court that the sentences were to run concurrently, direction can be issued by the High Court under inherent powers even if the stage of exercising discretion under section 427(1) of the Code is over, in circumstances which would serve the purposes mentioned in Section 482".

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI

Crl. A. 611/2018, Crl. M.A. 40714/2019 and Crl. M.B. 5926/2020

Decided On: 12.06.2020

 Pankaj Verma  Vs.   State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Suresh Kait, J.

Citation: MANU/DE/1232/2020

Print Page

Whether Magistrate can refuse to accept the surrender of accused in bailable offence and direct him to surrender before investigating officer?

1) Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. The short question which is posed for consideration of this Court is whether in a case where the accused is involved in bailable offences and he applies for bail under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he appears and surrenders before the learned Magistrate, whether Magistrate is legally bound to release the Petitioners on ail or he has to appear and surrender before the concerned police officer and furnish the bail bond? Another incidental question which is posed for the consideration of this Court s whether mere receipt of FIR by the concerned Magistrate as required under Section 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would amount to proceeding before the Court so as o attract Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?

2)  Mr. Barot's reliance upon the said case for propoundings a proposition that receipt of the copy of the FIR should also be considered to be the stage of proceeding because the word 'proceeding' used in Section 436, is wide enough to include the proceedings other than the judicial proceedings is misplaced for the simple reason that even if the word "proceedings before a court" were to be construed in a wider sense and not in the restricted sense of judicial proceeding alone then also it would be necessary to have some proceedings before the court and mere receipt of the copy of the FIR by no stretch of imagination can be equated with a stage of proceeding judicial or otherwise. It is only for the sake of giving information to the Magistrate that the police is investigating such a case that the copy of the FIR is sent under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the contention on behalf of the Petitioner that receipt of the copy of the FIR by the learned Magistrate should also be considered to be the "proceeding pending" before the learned Magistrate, cannot be accepted.

3) In the present case as stated herein above, no proceedings are pending before the learned Magistrate and therefore, Petitioner straightway cannot appear and surrender before the learned Magistrate and furnish the bail and request the Magistrate to release him on bail under Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has to appear and surrender before the police officer in charge of the police station and furnish the bail and as observed by the learned single Judge in the case of Ramesh Amritlal Chhatral (supra) and even otherwise considering Section 436 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on giving/furnishing the bail by the accused, as required by the concerned police officer, an accused is entitled to be released on bail.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT

Special Criminal Application No. 2388 of 2010

Decided On: 02.12.2010

 Dinesh Babulal Thakkar Vs.  State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.R. Shah, J.

Citation: 2010 SCC OnLine Guj 13836,2011 CRLJ 1364, MANU/GJ/1459/2010

Print Page

Whether the court should hear accused before directing further investigation in a criminal case?

 In the case of Dinubhai Baghabhai Solanki (supra) after considering one another decision of this Court in the case of Sri Bhagwan Samardha v. State of A.P. MANU/SC/0402/1999 : (1999) 5 SCC 740, it is observed and held that there is nothing in Section 173(8) Code of Criminal Procedure to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused before any direction for further investigation is made. In Sri Bhagwan Samardha (supra), this Court in paragraph 11 held as under:

11. In such a situation the power of the court to direct the police to conduct further investigation cannot have any inhibition. There is nothing in Section 173(8) to suggest that the court is obliged to hear the Accused before any such direction is made. Casting of any such obligation on the court would only result in encumbering the court with the burden of searching for all the potential Accused to be afforded with the opportunity of being heard. As the law does not require it, we would not burden the Magistrate with such an obligation.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2020

Decided On: 02.03.2020

Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah  Vs.State of Gujarat and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and M.R. Shah, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0241/2020,(2020) 4 SCC 22

Print Page

Supreme Court: Court can not hold observations made in other case laws on the point of appreciation of evidence regarding the credibility of a witness as precedent

 In the context of what value should be attached to the statements of the witnesses examined in this case, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for the appellants to a number of authorities. We have refrained from referring to those authorities because, in our opinion, reference to those authorities is rather misplaced. The fate of the present case like that of every other criminal case depends upon its own facts and the intrinsic worth of the evidence adduced in the case rather than what was said about the evidence of witnesses in other decided cases in the context of facts of those cases. The question of credibility of a witness has primarily to be decided by referring to his evidence and finding out as to how the witness has fared in cross-examination and what impression is created by his evidence taken in the context of the other facts of the case. Criminal cases cannot be put in a strait jacket. Though there may be similarity between the facts of some cases, there would always be shades of difference and quite" often that difference may prove to be crucial. The same can also be said about the evidence adduced in one case and that produced in another. Decided cases can be of help if there be a question of law like the admissibility of evidence. Likewise, decided cases can be of help if the question be about the applicability of some general rule of evidence, e.g., the weight to be attached to the evidence of an accomplice. This apart, reference to decided cases hardly seems apposite when the question before the court is whether the evidence of a particular witness should or should not be accepted.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 1973

Decided On: 26.07.1974

Charan Singh  Vs. State of Punjab

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

H.R. Khanna and Y.V. Chandrachud, JJ.

Citation: AIR1975SC246, 1974CriLJ1253, (1975)3SCC39, (1974)SCC(Cri)735, [1975]1SCR561,MANU/SC/0118/1974

Print Page

Whether court should give divorce on ground that wife had filed criminal case against husband if he has not taken that plea in his divorce petition?

 It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case

the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such

other allegation has been made and the husband and his

family members are exposed to criminal litigation and

ultimately if it is found that such allegation is

unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife

itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that

mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in

such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of

marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered

before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could

well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the

marriage on that ground. However, in the present facts

as already indicated, the situation is not so. Though a

criminal complaint had been lodged by the wife and

husband has been acquitted in the said proceedings the

basis on which the husband had approached the Trial

Court is not of alleging mental cruelty in that regard but

with regard to her intemperate behaviour regarding

which both the courts below on appreciation of the

evidence had arrived at the conclusion that the same was

not proved. In that background, if the judgment of the

High Court is taken into consideration, we are of the

opinion that the High Court was not justified in its

conclusion.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 19121913

OF 2020

Mangayakarasi  Vs  M. Yuvaraj 

Dated:March 03, 2020

A.S. Bopanna,J.

Print Page

Whether evidence collected by investigating officer in criminal case can be treated as evidence in departmental enquiry?

Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial proceeding. The Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the Investigating Officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the Enquiry Officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the Enquiry Officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. Appellant being an employee of the bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the Enquiry Officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 7431 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 14429 of 2007)

Decided On: 19.12.2008

Roop Singh Negi  Vs.  Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Cyriac Joseph, JJ.

Print Page

Whether claimant in motor accident claim petition can examine any witness who is not cited as witness in criminal case?

 Clearly, the evidence given by Bhagchand withstood
the respondents’ scrutiny and the respondents were unable
to shake his evidence. In turn, the High Court has failed to
take note of the absence of cross examination of this
witness by the respondents, leave alone the Tribunal’s
finding on the same, and instead, deliberated on the
reliability of Bhagchand’s (A.D.2) evidence from the
viewpoint of him not being named in the list of eye
witnesses in the criminal proceedings, without even
mentioning as to why such absence from the list is fatal to
the case of the appellants. This approach of the High Court
is mystifying, especially in light of this Court’s observation
[as set out in Parmeshwari (supra) and reiterated in
Mangla Ram (supra)] that the strict principles of proof in a
criminal case will not be applicable in a claim for
compensation under the Act and further, that the standard
to be followed in such claims is one of preponderance of

probability rather than one of proof beyond reasonable
doubt. There is nothing in the Act to preclude citing of a
witness in motor accident claim who has not been named in
the list of witnesses in the criminal case. What is essential
is that the opposite party should get a fair opportunity to
cross examine the concerned witness. Once that is done, it
will not be open to them to complain about any prejudice
caused to them. If there was any doubt to be cast on the
veracity of the witness, the same should have come out in
cross examination, for which opportunity was granted to the
respondents by the Tribunal.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1665 OF 2019

Sunita Vs  Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation 
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.
Dated:February 14, 2019.

Print Page

When court should not allow compounding of criminal case if it involves forgery?

 Having heard all sides and having gone through the record, this court finds that the gravamen of the charges framed against the petitioner in the criminal case primarily is that he was an employee of Kundan Edible Oil Mills, a sister concern of Kundan Rice Mill in which the second respondent was the Managing Director, the third respondent being its Chief Financial Officer at the relevant point of time. It is stated that the petitioner in his capacity as an employee under the said respondents had dishonestly removed a cheque leaf of the said entity against its bank account with HDFC bank, and the said cheque leaf having been forged and fabricated so as to purport to be a cheque issued in the sum of Rs. 6 Lakh was presented in the bank for obtaining payment there-against. The cheque, upon presentation and scrutiny, was found to be forged and fabricated and this fact having been brought to light, complaint was lodged leading to the registration of the said FIR. During the investigation, the petitioner statedly was unable to account for possession of the cheque which was forged, grave suspicion arising being that he knowing full well that it was a forged instrument had attempted to use it to commit the offence of cheating by presenting it dishonestly to receive value there-against from the bank.

5. This court agrees with the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the facts of the case, as noted above, render it one beyond the dispute that is “private in nature”. It involves serious economic offences which concern not only the entity against the account of which the forged cheque was attempted to be encashed but also the bank where the account was maintained. Having regard to the spirit of the law laid down by a bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Supreme Court in Parbatbhai Aahir(supra), this can hardly be said to be a case meriting exercise of the inherent power of this court to bring an end to the prosecution.

In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

(Before R.K Gauba, J.)

Pawan Gupta 

v.

State of NCT Delhi & Ors. 

Crl.M.C 4927/2015

Decided on August 23, 2018

Citation:2018 SCC OnLine Del 11121

Print Page

Whether court has power to extend time for investigation of criminal case?

 We now turn to the subsidiary issue, namely, whether the
High Court could have extended the period. The provisions of the Code do
not empower anyone to extend the period within which the investigation
must be completed nor does it admit of any such eventuality. There are
enactments such as the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act,
1985 and Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 which clearly
contemplate extension of period and to that extent those enactments have
modified the provisions of the Code including Section 167. In the absence
of any such similar provision empowering the Court to extend the period, no
Court could either directly or indirectly extend such period.

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1218 OF 2018
@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.6453 OF 2018

Achpal @ Ramswaroop & Another Vs State of Rajasthan.

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
Dated:September 24, 2018

Print Page

Whether writ of habeas corpus can be issued if the magistrate has given police custody of accused?

 The question as to whether a writ of habeas corpus could
be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody
pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional
Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation,
this issue has been considered in the case of Saurabh Kumar
through his father Vs. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., 1 and
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.2 It
is no more res integra. In the present case, admittedly, when
the writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was
1 (2014) 13 SCC 436
2 (2013) 1 SCC 314

filed by the respondent on 18th/19th March, 2018 and decided
by the High Court on 21st March, 2018 her husband Rizwan
Alam Siddique was in police custody pursuant to an order
passed by the Magistrate granting his police custody in
connection with FIR No.I31
vide order dated 17th March, 2018
and which police remand was to enure till 23rd March, 2018.
Further, without challenging the stated order of the
Magistrate, a writ petition was filed limited to the relief of
habeas corpus. In that view of the matter, it was not a case of
continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial
custody by virtue of an order passed by the jurisdictional
Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during
investigation of a criminal case. Resultantly, no writ of habeas
corpus could be issued.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1124 OF 2018

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Vs Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee 
Dated:September 05, 2018.
A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

Print Page

Procedure to be followed by court if two views are possible on evidence adduced in criminal case

 We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh MANU/SC/0121/1973 : 1974CriLJ1 , this Court made the following observations:

Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 1983

Decided On: 17.07.1984

 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs.  State of Maharashtra

Print Page

Supreme court: Trial of Civil / criminal cases can not be stayed for more than six months

 In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.

In the Supreme Court of India

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Adarsh Kumar Goel, Navin Sinha and R.F. Nariman, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1375-1376 of 2013

Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v.  Central Burueau of Investigation .

Decided on March 28, 2018

Citation: 2018 SCCONLINE SC 310

Print Page