LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Estoppel -- Estoppel in Criminal Proceedings -- The rule regarding issue estoppel relates to admissibility of evidence in subsequent proceedings which is designed to up-set a finding of fact recorded on the previous occasion and mandates that the finding so rendered on earlier occasion must operate as issue estoppel in subsequent proceedings -- It makes it impermissible to lead any such evidence at a subsequent stage or occasion -- Where an issue of fact has been tried by a competent court on an earlier occasion and a finding has been recorded in favour of the accused, such a finding would constitute an estoppel or res judicata against the prosecution, not as a bar to the trial and conviction of the accused for a different or distinct offence, but as precluding the acceptance/reception of evidence to disturb the finding of fact when the accused is tried subsequently for a different offence -- This rule is distinct from the doctrine of double jeopardy as it does not prevent the trial of any offence but only precludes the evidence being led to prove a fact in issue as regards which evidence has already been led and a specific finding has been recorded at an earlier criminal trial.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 154 – Registration of F.I.R. – The mandate upon the Police – Held: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ; Order XIII, Rule 3 –
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 : Art. 45, Sec. 35 –
Indian Registration Act, 1908; Sec.17,49 –
Hindu Succession Act, 1955 –
Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order VII Rule 11—Difference between Memorandum of family settlement and Family Settlement – the alleged memorandum of family settlement divided the entire property between plaintiff and defendant and there is relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the properties and as such it is Family Settlement and not memo (Para 11) – memo does not create any right -- the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act as there was relinquishment of share – it should be stamped in proper manner as specified in the Indian Stamp Act – document also being not stamped could not have been accepted in evidence (Para 13) -- whether the said document could have been accepted by the trial court in evidence or not -- whether the said unregistered and properly not stamped document which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose -- Held: the same are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition – unstampped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded by paying stamp with penalty.

Constitution of India, Art. 21 – Life of dignity – Society must have sympathy towards the sex workers – They are entitled to a life of dignity in view of Art 21 of the constitution – Direction to prepare schemes for giving technical/vocational training to sex workers and sexually abused women in all cities in India.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 205 ------ Exemption from personal appearance ----- Case under section 498A IPC read with S.4 of D.P. Act at Patna ----- Appellant No. 1 is a retired Army personal and residing in Pune, Appellant No. 2, Appellant No. 3 and 4 are also resident of Pune and the husband is working in Hyderabad ------- The appellants are engaged in their respective jobs at their respective places ------ Sufficient grounds are there to allow application under section 205 Cr.P.C.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 26 – Whether earning mother has any liability towards maintenance of the child -- As much the obligation of the father to maintain a minor child as that of the mother -- It is not the law that how affluent mother may be it is the obligation only of the father to maintain the minor.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 439 ----- Application for Bail to Session Court or High Court without filing application before the Magistrate ---
-- If maintainable ----- Held: that there are no restrictions on the High Court or Sessions Court to entertain an application for bail, provided, accused is in custody.

Evidence Act, 1972 – Appreciation of Evidence – Behaviour of witnesses – Held: the reactions of these witnesses in running away from the site of occurrence appears to be a natural human reaction under the facts and circumstances of the case. Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expecting uniformity in their reactions would be unrealistic, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction. The evidence of the three eyewitnesses cannot be faulted merely because they ran away;

Maxim -- Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus -- (false in one thing, false in everything) is not being used in India. Virtually, it is not applicable to the Indian scenario. Hence, the said maxim is treated as neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice in India. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. Efforts should be made to find the truth. This is the very object for which Courts are created. To search it out, the Court has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust, as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So, it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limits to find out the truth. It means, on one hand that no innocent man should be punished, but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the evidence.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 74 – Admissibility of certified copy of public document in evidence -- Certified copy of the public document prepared under Section 76 of the Act is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the said Act -- Certified copy of a public document is admissible in evidence without being proved by calling witness.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 78 – Presumption to the genuineness of certified copy of decree -- The decree was passed and drafted in the light of the compromise entered into between the parties, viz., the plaintiff and the defendants, the certified copy of such document which was produced before the Court, there is presumption as to the genuineness of such certified copy under Section 78 of the Act.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; S. 2(1) (d) ----- Whether land owner who entered into agreement with Developer for development of property is a consumer ------ What is required to be scrutinised whether there is any joint venture agreement between the appellant and the respondent ----- The MOU that was entered into between the parties even remotely does not indicate that it is a joint venture ----- As per MOU the land owner has no say or control over the construction, he does not participate in the business, he is only entitled to a certain constructed area ----- The irresistible conclusion is that the appellant is a consumer under the Act.