Orissa HC: Provisions of CRPC shall have an overriding effect over Pension Rules

The said judgment was challenged by the State of

Maharashtra before the Supreme Court. Rule 27 of the Maharashtra

Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1982 is a pari materia provision with

Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. On interpretation, it is held

by the Supreme Court that, those provisions of the Pension Rules is only meant for the purpose of granting, withholding or withdrawing the pension and it‟s operation would be in the limited field and cannot supersede the period of limitation prescribed under the Cr.P.C.

This Court also by relying the said decision of the

Supreme Court, in the case of Fani Bhusan Das & Anr. Vs. State

of Odisha (CRLMC Nos. 258 &686 of 2004, and 2626 of 2007),

reported in 2018 SCC Online 310, has observed that the provision

of the Cr.P.C. shall have an overriding effect and shall prevail

notwithstanding any provision in the Pension Rules, and therefore,

the provisions of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 would not give any relief to the petitioners.

So the contention of these two petitioners to give them

immune from criminal prosecution by virtue of Rule-7 of the OCS

(Pension) Rules is found without substance and accordingly rejected.
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK

In CRLREV No.534 of 2019

Jitendra Nath Patnaik  Vs  State of Odisha (Vigilance) 

PRESENT:

 SHRI JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

Date of Judgment : 06.08.2020

Print Page

Important Notes on Criminal Procedure Code

1)Notes on appeal to session court

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-appeal-to-session-court.html

2)Notes on tender of pardon to accomplice

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-tender-of-pardon-to-accomplice.html

3)NOTES ON EXAMINATION OF ACCUSED U/S 313 OF CRPC

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-examination-of-accued-us-313.html

4)NOTES ON BAIL AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER CR.P.C

https://www.lawweb.in/2018/05/notes-on-bail-and-anticipatory-bail.html

Print Page

What are limitations for exercise of revisional powers under CRPC?

The revision power under the code of Criminal procedure cannot be exercised in a routine and casual manner. While exercising such powers the High Court has no authority to appreciate the evidence in the manner as the trial and the appellate courts are required to do. Revisional powers could be exercised only when it is shown that there is a legal bar against the continuance of the criminal proceedings or the framing of charge or the facts as stated in the First Information Report even if they are taken at the face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence for which the accused has been charged. This Court inKanti Bhadra Sha & Anr. v. State of West Bengal MANU/SC/0004/2000 : 2000CriLJ746 has held that there is no legal requirement for the trial court to write a reasoned or lengthy order for framing the charges.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1138 of 2001

Decided On: 06.11.2001

 Munna Devi Vs  State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.B. Shah and R.P. Sethi, JJ.

Citation:  2001 (3) ACR 2363 (SC)

Print Page

What are powers of high court U/S 482 of CRPC in proceeding under domestic violence Act?

A plain reading of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., which saves inherent power of the High Court, indicates that the power is to be exercised by the High Court not just to quash the proceedings, rather it has to be exercised for specific as well as broader purposes. The exercise of the inherent power has been delimited to such purposes as giving effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This would show that the inherent power of the High Court can be invoked not only to seek quashing of a proceeding, but also to give effect to any order under the Code or to challenge any order of the Court, which amounts to abuse of the process of the Court or generally to secure the ends of justice. This would mean that not only the respondent-man but also the aggrieved person-woman may feel like approaching the High Court to give effect to any order or to prevent abuse of the process of Court or to secure ends of justice. This would show that this power is capable of being used by either of the parties and not just by the respondent seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 12 of the D.V. Act. If this power is removed from Section 28 of the D.V. Act, the affected woman may as well or equally get adversely hit, and this is how, the very object of the D.V. Act may get defeated.

59. Now, one incidental question would arise as to from what stage the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would become applicable and in our view, the answer could be found out from the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the D.V. Act. A combined reading of these provisions shows that the commencement of the proceedings would take place the moment, the Magistrate applies his mind to the contents of the application and passes any judicial order including that of issuance of notice. Once, the proceeding commences, the procedure under Section 28 of the D.V. Act, subject to the exceptions provided in the Act and the rules framed thereunder, would apply. In other words, save as otherwise provided in the D.V. Act and the rules framed thereunder and subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 28, the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall govern the proceedings under Sections 12 to 23 and also those relating to an offence under Section 31 of the D.V. Act on their commencement.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Application [APL] No. 578 of 2011

Decided On: 03.05.2018

Nandkishor Pralhad Vyawahare Vs. Mangala

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.P. Dharmadhikari, S.B. Shukre and Swapna Joshi, JJ.

Citation: 2018(3) MHLJ 913

Print Page

Maharashtra amendment to CRPC and IPC 2018

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gK3XIEqCpY-GFBIwjPhJUJ5FZkd-auQR/view?usp=sharing

Print Page

NOTES ON BAIL AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL UNDER CR.P.C

S 436. In what cases bail is to be taken:-

In bailable offence, bail can be claimed as a matter of right.

S 436A (inserted by 2005 amendment) provides that if a person has during the period of investigation,inquiry or trial under the Code, undergone imprisonment for a period extending upto one half of the maximum imprisonment specified for that offence,he shall be released by court on his personal bond with or without sureties. However this can not be done if the offence is one for which death sentence has been specified as one of the punishments.

It is also provided that,in any case,a person can not be detained during the period of investigation,inquiry or trial,for more than the maximum period of imprisonment for that offence.

Print Page

Whether police can conduct search and seizure in piecemeal for an extended period?

The term ‗search' as applied to searches and seizures, is an examination of a man's house or other buildings or premises, or of his person, with a view to the discovery of contraband or illicit or stolen property, or some evidence of guilt to be used in the prosecution of a criminal action for some crime or offence with which he is charged. As used in this connection, the term implies some exploratory investigation, or an invasion and quest, a looking for or seeking out. The quest may be secret, intrusive, or accomplished by force, and it has been held that a search implies some sort of force, either actual or constructive, much or little. A search implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed and that the object searched for has been hidden or intentionally put out of the way. While it has been said that
ordinarily searching is a function of sight, it is generally held that mere looking at that which is open to view is not a 'search'.‖
(emphasis supplied)
Accepting the above definition, the Karnataka High Court further observed:-

―All searches are inspections, but all inspections are not searches. A search is a thorough inspection of a man's house, building or premises or of his person, with the object of discovering some material which would furnish evidence of guilt for some offence with which he is charged. It implies a prying into hidden places for that which is concealed. If the object sought for is always in plain sight, then there is no search.‖

The second undisputed fact is that the search was discontinued on October 27, 1995, and resumed only on November 10, 1995. The reasons stated for the gap of 14 days is hardly convincing. There is no provision in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Income-tax Act or the rules for postponing the search for such a long period. N. Subramanian in his book Search and Seizure stated at page 108 that when once the search starts it can go on continuously day or night, rain or shine. To keep the affected parties in a suspended animation about the probable continuation of search would be agonising.

 There is no bar for the operation to continue on holidays. The absence of the petitioners in the house is nothing but a lame excuse. If the respondents wanted the operation to be continued there are ways to secure the presence of the petitioners and continue the operations. Therefore, unless there is convincing reason for not resuming search immediately the proceedings undertaken by the second respondent for a second search cannot be held to be legal. It is invading the right and freedom of the petitioners for a period more than required or necessary. The averment that the petitioners were not available for two days is denied by them. Instead it is stated that they could not keep the house in order as the search was incomplete and that they had telephoned and required the officers to complete the search. Therefore, search has prolonged unreasonably without justification.‖
(emphasis supplied)

21. A search is necessarily an invasion of privacy and such an invasion cannot be permitted to be prolonged on a pretext. There must be some cogent plausible reason for splitting the search and in not conducting it continuously till its conclusion. Viewed in this light, even if it were assumed for the sake of argument that a search took place on 03.01.2001, the same could not be regarded as legal on account of the unexplained gap of about a month and a half (from 17.11.2000 to 03.01.2001).

Delhi High Court

Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhi ... vs Shri S.K. Katyal on 12 November, 2008

Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed

Print Page

Whether provisions of money laundering Act will have overriding effect over CRPC in respect of grant of bail?

We have noted that Section 45 of the PMLA will have overriding effect on the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure in case of conflict between them. As mentioned earlier, Section 45 of the PMLA imposes two conditions for grant of bail, specified under the said Act. We have not missed the proviso to Section 45 of the said Act which indicates that the legislature has carved out an exception for grant of bail by a Special Court when any person is under the age of 16 years or is a woman or is a sick or infirm. Therefore, there is no doubt that the conditions laid down under Section 45A of the PMLA, would bind the High Court as the provisions of special law having overriding effect on the provisions of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to any person accused of committing offence punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, even when the application for bail is considered under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1706 OF 2015

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6701 of 2015)

GAUTAM KUNDU … APPELLANT(S)

:VERSUS:

MANOJ KUMAR, 

Citation;2016 CRLJ 666

Dated;December 16, 2015. 

Print Page

What is meant by “a minor offence” for the purpose of Section 222 of CRPC?

What is meant by “a minor offence” for the
purpose of Section 222 of the Code? Although the
said expression is not defined in the Code it can be
discerned from the context that the test of minor
offence
is
not
merely
that
the
prescribed
punishment is less than the major offence. The
two illustrations provided in the section would
bring the above point home well. Only if the two
offences are cognate offences, wherein the main
ingredients
are
common, the one punishable
among them with a lesser sentence can be
regarded as minor offence vis-à-vis the other
offence.”


IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 39 OF 2012

Mr. Shrinivas Guramkondu, V/s The State of Goa,

CORAM : U.V. BAKRE, J.
DATE : 17th November, 2014
Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri)1003

Print Page

Whether police can arrest accused when magistrate has directed inquiry under S 202 of CRPC?

In the light of above discussion, we are unable to find
any error in the view taken by the Magistrate and the High
Court that direction under Section 156(3) was not warranted
in the present case and the police may not be justified in
exercising power of arrest in the course of submitting report
under Section 202.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.600 OF 2007

RAMDEV FOOD PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED  Vs  STATE OF GUJARAT

Dated;MARCH 16, 2015

Print Page

Whether caveat as per S148-A of CPC can be filed in criminal matter?

 It is therefore evident that under the Cr.PC.in a criminal case at any stage of inquiry, trial or appeal, no such specific provision of filing a caveat, as governed by section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure exists. There are no other provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure under which a private party / complainant / informant can file a caveat to oppose the proceeding initiated at the behest of the accused. Learned Division Bench of Delhi High Court vide judgement dated 11th May 2001 passed in WPC No. 1703/2001 in the case of Deepak Khosla vs. Union of India & others, had also the occasion to consider, whether a caveat application is maintainable in a criminal matter to oppose the prayer of the accused person seeking an interim order from the Court? Learned Court after considering the provisions of the CPC and Cr.PC., as has been noticed herein above as well, came to an authoritative conclusion that there is no legal sanction for filing a caveat by the applicant concerned to oppose the prayer of the accused in a criminal matter. Learned Division Bench considered the judgement of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sahab Ram & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others [2000 (2) WLN 554] which also had taken the same view.

14. From the aforesaid discussions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that there is no scope for filing a caveat as required under section 148-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in a criminal proceeding. The first question of law is answered accordingly.

Jharkhand High Court

Santu Mahto vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 July, 2014

Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri)JOURNAL65

Print Page

To what extent provisions of Criminal procedure Code are applicable to proceeding under Wild life protection Act?

 The scheme of Section 50 of the Wild Life Act makes it abundantly clear that Police Officer is also empowered to investigate the offences and search and seize the offending articles. For trial of offences, Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed and for that there is no other specific provision to the contrary. Special procedure prescribed is limited for taking cognizance of the offence as well as powers are given to other officers mentioned in Section 50 for inspection, arrest, search and seizure as well of recording statement. The power to compound offences is also conferred under Section 54. Section 51

provides for penalties which would indicate that certain offences are cognizable offences meaning thereby police officer can arrest without warrant. Sub-section (5) of Section 51 provides that nothing contained in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence with respect to hunting in a sanctuary or a national park or of an offence against any provision of Chapter 5A unless such person is under 18 years of age. The aforesaid specific provisions are contrary to the provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure and that would prevail during the trial. However, from this, it cannot be said that operation of rest of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are excluded.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Hon'ble Justice M.B.Shah and Hon'ble Jusitce  B.N.Agarwal.

MOTI LAL  Vs. CENTAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Reported in 2002 AIRSCW 1626 = AIR 2002 SC 1691

Print Page