Showing posts with label trial court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trial court. Show all posts

Tuesday, 14 April 2026

Can a Court Allow a Time-Barred Amendment of Pleadings? Scope of Trial Court and First Appellate Court Powers Under Order VI Rule 17 CPC

Order VI Rule 17 CPC confers a wide discretionary power on civil courts to permit amendment of pleadings at any stage if the amendment is necessary for determining the real question in controversy between the parties. But this power is not unstructured: the court must weigh necessity, prejudice, limitation, due diligence, and the effect of the proposed amendment on the nature of the case.

A frequent question is whether a court can permit an amendment when the plea or relief sought to be introduced appears to be barred by limitation. The correct answer is: yes, in some cases; no, in others. There is no absolute prohibition against allowing a time-barred amendment, but a court should ordinarily decline such amendment when it introduces a fresh cause of action or a fresh relief that had already become barred on the date of the amendment application, because that would deprive the opposite party of a valuable accrued defence.

Print Page

Friday, 13 June 2025

Trial Courts Can Cancel Supreme Court Bail: Landmark Ruling Settles Jurisdictional Confusion

 In a groundbreaking judgment that resolves a long-standing jurisdictional confusion in criminal law, the Supreme Court has definitively established that trial courts possess the authority to cancel bail granted by Constitutional Courts, including the Supreme Court itself, when bail conditions are violated.

 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA through the CBI Versus VINAY RAJASHEKHARAPPA KULKARNI, SLP(Crl) No. 7865/2025: Facts and Background

Print Page

Sunday, 11 August 2024

What is the duty of the appellate court while deciding appeal against acquittal?

 We have heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the evidence as well as the judgments of the two courts below. From the judgment of the trial court, we notice that the learned Magistrate has given cogent reasons for not accepting the evidence led on behalf of the respondent and on that basis he came to the conclusion that the complainant/respondent has not established his case. While the High Court on reappreciation of the evidence, has come to a different conclusion on entirely new grounds without considering the material considered by the trial court and as held above, convicted the appellant. While doing so, the High Court had lost sight of the fact that it was sitting as an appellate court against a judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, therefore, there was an obligation on the part of the High Court to come to a definite conclusion that the findings of the trial court are either perverse or the same are contrary to material on record because the High Court could not have substituted its finding merely because another contrary opinion was possible based on material on record. It was the duty of the High Court to have first come to the conclusion that the conclusions arrived at by the trial court for good reasons are either unreasonable or at stated above, contrary to the material on record. In the absence of any such finding in our opinion, the High Court was in error in taking a contra view merely because another view was possible on the material on record. {Para 5}


6. This Court in a number of cases has held that though the appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded, still while exercising such an appellate power in a case of acquittal, the appellate court, should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question of fact and the reasons given by the courts below in support of its order of acquittal, it must express its reasons in the judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal is not justified. In those line of cases this Court has also held that the appellate court must also bear in mind the fact that the trial court had the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box and the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the order of acquittal, and in such cases if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Appeal (crl.) 1748 of 1996

Decided On: 01.11.2002

C. Antony Vs. K.G. Raghavan Nair

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

N. Santosh Hegde and B.P. Singh, JJ.

Author: N. Santosh Hegde, J.

Citation: AIR 2003 SC 182, MANU/SC/0968/2002.

Print Page

Friday, 2 August 2024

Whether plaintiff should value his appeal on the basis of combined valuation of the plaint and counterclaim where both suit and counter-claim are dismissed?

 Where both suit and counter-claim are dismissed, the subject-matter of the appeal would be the plaint. Hence valuation would be as per the valuation of the plaint and Court fee as payable on the plaint; would be as due and payable thereon. The plaintiff cannot be made to value his appeal on the basis of the combined valuation of the plaint and counterclaim, in respect of which he makes no claim. {Para 48}.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 283 of 2006

Decided On: 05.03.2007

Teofilo Barreto Vs. Sadashiva G. Nasnodkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: V.C. Daga, J.

Citations: 2007 (4) BomCR 830, 2007 (6) MhLj 1, MANU/MH/0637/2007.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the District Court (Appellate Court) lacks jurisdiction to entertain appeal when valuation of cross-objection exceeds pecuniary jurisdiction of the District Court?

 Having noticed the change in old Code and new unamended Code of Civil Procedure, let me now turn to the further legislative change brought about in new Code by virtue of amendment of the year 1976; whereby provisions with respect to counter-claim under Order 8, Rule 6-A to 6-G came to be inserted. Consequent to this insertion provisions of Order 20, Rule 19(1), (2) also came to be amended and the words "counter-claim" were inserted immediately after the words "set off". Thus, by virtue of this amendment, set off and counter-claim are treated at par; and both were brought on the same platform with equal status. Therefore, while interpreting clause, Order 20, Rule 19(2), the same treatment which is given to a decree of set off, will have to be given to a decree in suit in which counter-claim was claimed. The legislative object which led to deletion of Section 216 and enactment of Order 20, Rule 19 in respect of decree of set off shall also hold good in respect of decree from counterclaim. As such decree passed in a suit where counter-claim was preferred has to be treated subject to the same provisions in respect of appeal to which it would have been subject, if no counter-claim had been preferred. If the legislative view is that the decree wherein the set off is claimed should go before the same Appellate Forum to which it would have been subject in normal course in absence of claim for set-off; then so far as the counter-claim is concerned; the same treatment will have to be accorded to a decree passed in a suit where counter-claim was preferred. As an extension of the same principle, the cross objection arising from the decree of set-off and/or counter-claim will have to be given similar treatment in the matter of determination of Appellate Forum. {Para 56}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

Writ Petition No. 283 of 2006

Decided On: 05.03.2007

Teofilo Barreto Vs. Sadashiva G. Nasnodkar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: V.C. Daga, J.

Citations: 2007 (4) BomCR 830, 2007 (6) MhLj 1, MANU/MH/0637/2007.

Print Page

Thursday, 27 June 2024

Whether trial court should allow subsequent bail application of accused if his earlier bail applications were rejected by higher courts?

In this context what has been stated by a three-Judge bench in Dinesh M.N. (S.P.) v. State of Gujarat   MANU/SC/7526/2008 : (2008) 5 SCC 66 is quite instructive. In the said case, the Court has held that where the Court admits the Accused to bail by taking into consideration irrelevant materials and keeping out of consideration the relevant materials the order becomes vulnerable and such vulnerability warrants annulment of the order. {Para 19}

20. In the instant case, as is demonstrable, the learned trial Judge has not been guided by the established parameters for grant of bail. He has not kept himself alive to the fact that twice the bail applications had been rejected and the matter had travelled to this Court. Once this Court has declined to enlarge the Appellants on bail, endeavours to project same factual score should not have been allowed. It is absolute impropriety and that impropriety call for axing of the order.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 2017.

Decided On: 28.03.2017

Virupakshappa Gouda and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ.

Author: Dipak Misra, J.

 Citations: AIR 2017 SC 1685, 2017 (5) SCC 406, 2017 CRI. L. J. 2769, AIR 2017 SC (CRIMINAL) 718, MANU/SC/0344/2017

Print Page

Monday, 20 May 2024

What is the duty of revisional court while scrutinizing the trial court's order refusing to summon defence witnesses?

 We may, however, observe that when the trial Judge assigned reasons in support of his judgment, we are of the opinion that the High Court while exercising its revisional jurisdiction was required to assign reasons as to how and to what extent, if any, it intended to differ with the order of the learned trial Judge. Sub-section (2) of Section 243 confers discretionary jurisdiction upon the learned trial Judge to refuse to summon witnesses at the instance of the defence, inter alia, on the ground that it was made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice. Such an order under Sub-section (2) of Section 243 Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be recorded by the learned Judge in writing. It was so done. Learned Special Judge, as noticed, hereinbefore, considered the matter at some depth. The High Court, therefore, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction Under Section 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure was required to assign reasons in support of its conclusions as to how the reasons assigned by the learned trial judge were untenable and/or were otherwise insufficient. {Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 925 and 926 of 2006

Decided On: 14.12.2006

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Tuncay Alankus

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ.

Citation: (2013) 9 SCC 611,MANU/SC/8908/2006.

Print Page

Sunday, 19 May 2024

What are basic principles for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by high court at the instance of a private complainant?

The High Court was exercising the revisional jurisdiction at the instance of a private complainant and, therefore, it is necessary to notice the principles on which such revisional jurisdiction can be exercised. Sub-section (3) of Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits conversion of a finding of acquittal into one of conviction. Without making the categories exhaustive, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised by the High Court at the instance of private complainant (1) where the trial court has wrongly shut out evidence which the prosecution wished to produce, (2) where the admissible evidence is wrongly brushed aside as inadmissible, (3) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case and has still acquitted the accused, (4) where the material evidence has been overlooked either by the trial court or the appellate court or the order is passed by considering irrelevant evidence and (5) where the acquittal is based on the compounding of the offence which is invalid under the law. {Para 9}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2420 of 2009 

Decided On: 17.12.2009

Sheetala Prasad and Ors. Vs. Sri Kant and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, JJ.

Author: J.M. Panchal, J.

Citation:  AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1140, 2010 (2) SCC 190,MANU/SC/1915/2009.

Print Page

Supreme court has disapproved revisional court exercising original powers of trial court

The High Court has in its revisional jurisdiction appraised the evidence which it could not have done. It is the trial court which has to decide whether evidence on record is sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the accused so as to frame charge against him. Pertinently, even the trial court cannot conduct roving and fishing inquiry into the evidence. It has only to consider whether evidence collected by the prosecution discloses prima facie case against the accused or not. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.   MANU/SC/0715/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 631


We find substance in the submission made on behalf of the Appellant. 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. {Para 13}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 893 of 2005

Decided On: 02.12.2011

Ashish Chadha Vs. Asha Kumari and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Swatanter Kumar and Ranjana Prakash Desai, JJ.

Author: Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/1456/2011,AIR 2012 SC 431.

Print Page

Wednesday, 1 May 2024

Bombay HC: The Appellate court should remand the case if the trial court has given a finding on title over suit property without framing issue on that point

 In this suit though specific averment is made in plaint about title and the same has been refuted by defendant, no specific issue in that regard is framed by Trial Court. Similarly, as the question of fact and law relating to title is involved, it was not proper for First Appellate Court to record findings thereon for first time. This would have resulted into loss of the opportunity of first appeal to aggrieved party. {Para 13}.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Appeal From Order Nos. 24, 22 of 2022, Civil Application Nos. 6863 and 12966 of 2022

Decided On: 10.04.2023

Laxmibai Vs. Sandeep

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.M. Joshi, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1396/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the appellate court should remand a case because the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence?

 A conjoint reading of Rules 23, 23A and 24 of Order XLI brings forth the scope as also contours of the powers of remand that when the available evidence is sufficient to dispose of the matter, the proper course for an Appellate Court is to follow the mandate of Rule 24 of Order XLI Code of Civil Procedure and to determine the suit finally. It is only in such cases where the decree in challenge is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary that the Appellate Court shall adopt the course of remanding the case. It remains trite that order of remand is not to be passed in a routine manner because an unwarranted order of remand merely elongates the life of the litigation without serving the cause of justice. An order of remand only on the ground that the points touching the appreciation of evidence were not dealt with by the Trial Court may not be considered proper in a given case because the First Appellate Court itself is possessed of jurisdiction to enter into facts and appreciate the evidence. {Para 25.4.}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 6076 of 2009

Decided On: 24.04.2020

Shivakumar and Ors. Vs. Sharanabasappa and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Khanwilkar, Hemant Gupta and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ.

Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0395/2020,(2021) 11 SCC 277,2020 SCCONLINE SC 385.

Print Page

Wednesday, 24 April 2024

Supreme Court: An appellate court is not competent to impose a punishment higher than the maximum that could have been imposed by the trial court.

We have seen the three decisions to which the learned Judge has made reference and they undoubtedly support his conclusion. This decision was followed in Emperor v. Abasali Yusufalli MANU/NA/0039/1935 : A.I.R. 1935 Nag. 139 and also in Mehi Singh v. Mangal Khandu I.L.R. 39 Cal. 157; Emperor v. Muhammad Yakub Ali I.L.R. 45 All. 594; and Maung E Maung v. The King A.I.R. 1940 Rang.113. In in re Tirumal RajuA.I.R. 1947 Mad. 868 it has been held that an appellate court is not competent to impose a punishment higher than the maximum that could have been imposed by the trial court. It seems to us that these cases lay down the correct law. An appeal court is after all "a court of error", that is, a court established for correcting an error. If, while purporting to correct an error, the court were to do something which was beyond the competence of the trying court, how could it be said to be correcting an error of the trying court ? No case has been cited before us in which it has been held that the High Court, after setting aside an acquittal, can pass a sentence beyond the competence of the trying court. Therefore, both on principle and authority it is clear that the power of the appellate court to pass a sentence must be measured by the power of the court from whose judgment an appeal has been brought before it. The High Court was thus in error in sentencing the appellant to undergo imprisonment in respect of the offence under s. 392 for a period exceeding two years. Accordingly we allow the appeal partially and reduce the sentence of imprisonment in respect of the offence under s. 392 from rigorous imprisonment of four years to a period of two years. Subject to this modification we dismiss the appeal. {Para 8}

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 1963

Decided On: 30.11.1965

Jagat Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.K. Sarkar, J.R. Mudholkar and R.S. Bachawat, JJ.

Author: J.R. Mudholkar, J.

Citation:  1965 INSC 271, MANU/SC/0096/1965,AIR 1966 SC 945.

Print Page

Thursday, 8 February 2024

Useful Free Reference Material on Trial Court Procedure in Maharashtra

 FOR CIVIL COURTS -


* Civil Manual (issued by Bombay High Court for Trial Court Procedure)
https://court.mah.nic.in/courtweb/index_eng.php#
(click on the information centre).

* Criminal Manual (issued by Bombay High Court for Trial Court Procedure)
https://court.mah.nic.in/courtweb/static_pages/page5b.htm
(click on the information centre)
Print Page

Wednesday, 24 May 2023

Under which circumstances Appellate court will not have same powers as that of trial court?

 The appeal is considered to be an extension of the suit because under Section 107 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellate court has the same powers as are conferred by the Code on courts of original jurisdiction in respect of suits instituted therein. Such a power can be exercised by the appellate court "as nearly as may be" exercised by the trial court under the Code. If the powers conferred upon the trial court are under a specified statute and not under the Code, it has to be ascertained as to whether such a power was intended to be exercised by the appellate court as well. Such a position can be ascertained by having a reference to the specified law by keeping in mind the legislative intention of conferment of power on the appellate court either expressly or by necessary implication.{Para 9}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 1838 of 2002

Decided On: 05.03.2002

 Vasant Ganesh Damle  Vs.Shrikant Trimbak Datar and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.P. Sethi and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.

Author: R P Sethi.

Citation : (2002 )4SCC 183, MANU/SC/0156/2002

Print Page

Thursday, 16 February 2023

Under which exceptional circumstances the Appellate court can remand the case to trial court?

 An order of remand prolongs and delays the litigation and

hence, should not be passed unless the appellate court finds that a re-trial is required, or the evidence on record is not sufficient

to dispose of the matter for reasons like lack of adequate

opportunity of leading evidence to a party, where there had been no real trial of the dispute or there is no complete or effectual

adjudication of the proceedings, and the party complaining has

suffered material prejudice on that account.1 Where evidence has already been adduced and a decision can be rendered on appreciation of such evidence, an order of remand should not be passed remitting the matter to the lower court, even if the lower court has omitted to frame issue(s) and/or has failed to determine any question of fact, which, in the opinion of the appellate court, is essential. The first appellate court, if required, can also direct the trial court to record evidence and finding on a particular aspect/issue in terms of Rule 25 to Order XLI, which then can be taken on record for deciding the case by the appellate court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023

ARVIND KUMAR JAISWAL (D) THR. LR. Vs DEVENDRA PRASAD JAISWAL VARUN

FEBRUARY 13, 2023.

Print Page

Saturday, 12 November 2022

Whether Unfair trial can be cured by fair appeal?


 It is then urged by learned Counsel for the appellant that the provision of an appeal under Section 22-A of the Act is a complete safeguard against any insufficiency in the original proceeding before the Council, and it is not mandatory that the member should be heard by the Council before it proceeds to record its finding. Section 22-A of the Act entitles a member to prefer an appeal to the High Court against an order of the Council imposing a penalty under Section 21(4) of the Act. It is pointed out that no limitation has been imposed on the scope of the appeal, and that an appellant is entitled to urge before the High Court every ground which was available to him before the Council. Any insufficiency, it is said, can be cured by resort to such appeal. Learned counsel apparently has in mind the view taken in some cases that an appeal provides an adequate remedy for a defect in procedure during the original proceeding. Some of those cases are mentioned in Sir William Wades erudite and classic work on "Administrative Law" But as that learned author observes, "in principle there ought to be an observance of natural justice equally at both stages", and if natural justice is violated at the first stage, the right of appeal is not so much a true right of appeal as a corrected initial hearing: instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to unfair trial followed by fair trial.

And he makes reference to the observations of Megarry J. in Leary v. National Union of Vehicle Builders [1971] 1 Ch. 34. Treating with another aspect of the point, that learned Judge said :


If one accepts the contention that a defect of natural justice in the trial body can be cured by the presence of natural justice in the appellate body, this has the result of depriving the member of his right of appeal from the expelling body. If the rules and the law combine to give the member the right to a fair trial and the right of appeal, why should he be told that he ought to be satisfied with an unjust trial and a fair appeal? Even if the appeal is treated as a hearing de novo, the member is being stripped of his right to appeal to another body from the effective decision to expel him. I cannot think that natural justice is satisfied by a process whereby an unfair trial, though not resulting in a valid expulsion, will nevertheless have the effect of depriving the member of his right of appeal when a valid decision to expel him is subsequently made. Such a deprivation would be a powerful result to be achieved by what in law is a mere nullity; and it is no mere triviality that might be justified on the ground that natural justice does not mean perfect justice. As a general rule, at all events, I hold that a failure of natural justice in the trial body cannot be cured by a sufficiency of natural justice in an appellate body.

The view taken by Megarry, J. was followed by the Ontario High Court in Canada in Re Cardinal and Board of Commissioners of Police of City of Cornwall [1974] 42 D.L.R. (3d) 323. The Supreme Court of New Zealand was similarly inclined in Wislang v. Medical Practioners Disciplinary Committee [1974] 1 N.Z.L.R. 29 and so was the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Reid v. Rowley [1977] 2 N.Z.L.R. 472.

{Para 17}

18. But perhaps another way of looking at the matter lies in examining the consequences of the initial order as soon as it is passed. There are cases where an order may cause serious injury as soon as it is made, an injury not capable of being entirely erased when the error is corrected on subsequent appeal. For instance, as in the present case, where a member of a highly respected and publicly trusted profession is found guilty of misconduct and suffers penalty, the damage to his professional reputation can be immediate and far-reaching. "Not all the King's horses and all the King's men" can ever salvage the situation completely, notwithstanding the widest scope provided to an appeal. To many a man, his professional reputation is his most valuable possession. It affects his standing and dignity among his fellow members in the profession, and guarantees the esteem of his clientele. It is often the carefully garnered fruit of a long period of scrupulous, conscientious and diligent industry. It is the portrait of his professional honour. In a world said to be notorious for its blase attitude towards the noble values of an earlier generation, a man's professional reputation is still his most sensitive pride. In such a case, after the blow suffered by the initial decision, it is difficult to contemplate complete restitution through an appellate decision. Such a case is unlike an action for money or recovery of property, where the execution of the trial decree may be stayed pending appeal, or a successful appeal may result in refund of the money or restitution of the property, with appropriate compensation by way of interest or mesne profits for the period of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems to us, there is manifest need to ensure that there is no breach of fundamental procedure in the original proceeding, and to avoid treating an appeal as an overall substitute for the original proceeding.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 1911 and1912 of 1980

Decided On: 21.10.1986

 Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.S. Pathak and Sabyasachi Mukherjee, JJ.

Author: R.S. Pathak, J.

Citation: MANU/SC/0083/1986

Print Page

Saturday, 9 April 2022

Supreme court to Trial court: Try to complete cross-examination of witness on the same day

We are informed by the complainant that there are four private witnesses. The grievance made is that whenever the first witness is under cross examination and after couple of questions the matter is deferred. If it is so, we cannot appreciate it. Once the witness is in the witness box and is being cross examined every endeavour must be made to ensure that the cross examination is completed on that day. This is more so looking into the nature of the case before the Court which is not a complex criminal trial.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL; M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3997/2021; 


NEETU TRIPATHI Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

Dated: 01-04-2022 

Print Page

Sunday, 20 March 2022

Whether the accused must obtain the trial court's permission to renew the passport if a higher court stays the criminal proceeding?

Arguably, case of the petitioner falls into this category. Be that as it may. (c) The impugned Endorsement is structured on the ground that a criminal case is pending inter alia against the petitioner in C.C.No.11606/2020, in the Court of learned

XVII ACMM, Bengaluru City. The same having been challenged in W.P.No.14431/2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has stayed all further proceedings before the Trial judge vide interim order dated 10.12.2020, is not in dispute. That being the position, the respondent- RPO is not justified in asking the petitioner to go the Trial the learned Trial

Judge to seek permission to travel aboard in the ‘stayed proceedings’. The Notification dated 25.08.1993 purportedly issued under Section 22 of the Act, normally expects an

order of the kind and this norm is applicable in ordinary circumstances, in the sense that the criminal proceedings are not stayed and hands of the Trial Judge are free to work, and not in the circumstances that have tied his hands. A contention to the

contrary amounts to asking the citizen to do an impossible act. Ordinarily, an act impossible of performance is treated as either having been accomplished or waived vide lex non cogit ad impossibilia which Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, 12th

Edition, Butterworths Wadhwa at pages 326 to 328 extensively discusses. Thus, the insistence on production of an order as mentioned in the impugned Endorsement is not justified.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

WRIT PETITION NO.19203 OF 2021(GM-PASS); 


KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

Dated:17 MARCH, 2022

Print Page

Monday, 19 July 2021

Whether the trial court is under obligation while awarding multiple sentences to specify whether they would run concurrently or consecutively?

 For what has been provided in Section 31(1) CrPC read with the

expositions of this Court, it follows that the Court of first instance is under legal obligation while awarding multiple sentences to specify in clear terms as to whether they would run concurrently or consecutively. In the case of Nagaraja Rao (supra), this Court expounded on this legal obligation upon the Court of first instance in the following terms:-

“11. The expressions “concurrently” and “consecutively”

mentioned in the Code are of immense significance while

awarding punishment to the accused once he is found guilty

of any offence punishable under IPC or/and of an offence

punishable under any other Special Act arising out of one trial

or more. It is for the reason that award of former enure to the

benefit of the accused whereas award of latter is detrimental

to the accused’s interest. It is therefore, legally obligatory

upon the court of first instance while awarding sentence to

specify in clear terms in the order of conviction as to whether

sentences awarded to the accused would run “concurrently”

or they would run “consecutively”.”

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 526 OF 2021


SUNIL KUMAR @ SUDHIR KUMAR  Vs THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 

Dated: MAY 25, 2021

Print Page

Tuesday, 22 June 2021

Whether Magistrate or trial court can stay its bail order for a specific time?

  The learned Advocate for respondent No. 1 contended that bail order is passed after hearing the prosecution and putting proper conditions and hence there is no power of stay that can be exercised by trial Court. I cannot accept this. For good reasons and in the interest of justice such power can always be reasonably exercised.

{Para 15}

16. Section 309 falls in Chapter XXIV which deals with general provisions as to inquiries and trials. In my opinion, under Section 309(1) when the learned Magistrate can stay or adjourn the inquiry or the proceedings it includes the power to stay his own orders including bail order for good reasons. The power is incidental in nature and meant for properly regulating enquiry and trial. The underlying purpose is to hold the proceedings speedily and to punish the guilty effectively and early or release the innocent. It is not possible to hold that the Magistrate or trial Court is not having such power. He can give reasons and stay the same for a particular period or refuse to stay the same. Similarly, he can make the same operative for the given reasons after a particular period or refuse the prayer made on behalf of the party. We can visualise the cases where bail order is passed in serious offences involving smuggling or narcotic drugs. In many of these cases foreign nationals are involved. If bail is granted and the order is not stayed even for some reasonable time to enable the prosecution to approach the higher Court, it will be extremely difficult to effectively approach the higher Court and deal with accused. In the meanwhile, the person may become scarce and may not be available. This is also the experience. Therefore, the power of stay can be exercised by the learned Magistrate or trial Court for particular reasonable time. In fact, the apex Court expressed its anxiety while making observations in the judgment mentioned above. It is not only the interest of an individual but the interest of the community is also required to be looked into. Further, the observations made by the apex Court in , as quoted above, go to show that merely because it is not mentioned in the specific words in Section 309(1) that the subordinate Courts i.e. Magistrate or the trial Court can stay its order of bail for specific period cannot be followed that it has no such power. I hold that there is such power. Therefore, the observations made by the learned Magistrate while rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to stay the operation of the order for a few days or to make the same operative from 3rd September 1993 on the ground "that there is no provision to that effect in Criminal Procedure Code" are erroneous. But he could have declined to exercise the power considering the facts and circumstances. Discretion can be exercised judicially.

Bombay High Court
C.P. Nangia, Assistant Collector ... vs Omprakash Aggarwal And Another on 22 September, 1993
Citations: 1994 CriLJ 2160
Bench: P Patankar
Print Page