LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 6 R. 17 ----- Amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed in a suit for partition ----- application for amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No. 462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No. 463 ---- The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463 ------ In the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake ----- The facts are not disputed. The identity of the suit land has not been changed ----- It is not a case where, as submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, one land is being substituted by another ----- The fact that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute ----- As indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which was the subject matter of sale ----- Order of the High Court confirming the order of the Civil Court allowing the amendment is confirmed.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S.138 ---- Complainant and accused both are working in Government College ----- Both are governed by the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules which prescribes the mode of lending and borrowing ----- Nothing on record to show that the prescribed mode has been complied with ----- Disputes concerning the source of fund of the complainant ------ Non Disclosure of the amount to Income Tax authority though the complainant is a regular Assessee ----- Complainant did not produce Bank Statement ----- The trial court took into account the testimony of the wife of the complaint in another criminal case arising under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in which she has stated that the present appellant/accused had not taken any loan from her husband ----- Acquittal of accused confirmed.

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.

Limitation Act, 1963; S. 6 and 8; Limitation Act, 1963; Art. 60 -- The starting point of limitation is the attaining of majority by the ward and the period of limitation is three years -- the alienation was effected in 1953 and the period of 12 years should be calculated from that date. Section 6 of the Limitation Act provides that a person entitled to institute a suit is at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor, he may institute the suit within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise has been allowed from the time specified therefore in the third column of the schedule. Section 8 provides that nothing in Section 6 applies to suits to enforce rights of pre-emptions, or shall be deemed to extend for more than three years from the cessation of the disability, the period of limitation for any suit.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 439 ----- Grant of Bail ----- The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course ---- Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence ----- Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind ----- It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 (d) -- Rejection of Plaint -- the has to be read as a whole -- The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) -- Only the averments in the plaint are germane -- The issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 11(d).

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S.138 ---- Complaint petition was filed by Shri V. Shankar claimed to be General Power of Attorney holder of the Complainant company ----- Subsequently PW 1 Shri Ravinder Singh gave the evidence on behalf of the Company under the General Power of Attorney given by the Complainant Company ------ The Complaint was not signed either by the Managing Director or Director of the Company ----- It is also not in dispute that PW 1 is only the employee of the Company ----- As per Resolution of the Company Managing Director and Director are authorized to file suits and criminal complaints against the debtors for recovery of money and for prosecution ------ Under third part of the said resolution they were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to appear on their behalf in the Court and engage lawyer etc ------ But nothing on record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company ------ Managing Director and Director are authorized persons of the Company to file the complaint by signing and by giving evidence ----- At best the said persons can nominate any person to represent themselves or the Company before the Court ------ In the present case one Shri Shankar Prasad employee of the Company signed the complaint and the Deputy General Manager of the Company i.e. PW-1 gave evidence as if he knows everything though he does not know anything ------ There is nothing on the record to suggest that he was authorized by the Managing Director or any Director ------ Acquittal of the Accused confirmed.

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.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Divorce on the ground of cruelty against wife – Wife attempted to commit suicide by pouring kerosene without any reason – Observed that no husband would ever be comfortable with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life -- The mere idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband under tremendous stress – Held: Only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty;

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 –; Wife’s claim to get separated from her in laws and to live separately with husband -- Observed that In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son gets separated from the family – A wife is expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage -- No husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income – Held: The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband;

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (2) – Electronic record -- Specified conditions --
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the computer during the period over which the same was regularly used to
store or process information for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of that computer;
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and (iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.;

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (4) – Electronic record -- Conditions to be fulfilled --
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (4) – Electronic record – Certificate -- The person issuing certificate needed only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief -- Such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65B (4) – Electronic record -- If an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, the same is admissible in evidence, without compliance of the conditions in Section 65B of the Evidence Act.