Weekly Digest (case laws) no.1 – March ’2024

Section 91 Cr.P.C: Accused has no right to summon call at the stage of charge framing

March 11, 2024

Appeal against High Court order on summoning call details during criminal proceedings in Rajasthan. Accused’s application rejected by Trial Court, allowed by High Court. Important legal implications discussed.

WhatsApp status: Criticizing abrogation of Article 370 in J&K is protected under freedom of speech (Article 19(1)(a)) and does not violate section 153A IPC

March 9, 2024

The expression of speech through a WhatsApp status criticizing certain actions does not necessarily attract offence under section 153A of the IPC.

Title: Understanding Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Criminal Conspiracy and its Implications

March 9, 2024

Explore the significance of Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code in addressing criminal conspiracies and its implications on the legal landscape.

Case diary: Section 172(3) Cr.P.C: The accused has a right to cross-examine police officer as per section 145 Evidence Act whenever the police officer uses it to refresh his memory

March 8, 2024

Trial court placed burden on accused regarding case diary corrections, Missing pages. Convicted under section 302 IPC, seeks acquittal after confirmation by High Court.

Custody of child in Mohammaden Law: No system of adoption of child in Mohammaden law: Custody of children is the welfare of children and not the right of their parents

March 8, 2024

Against the order passed by the Hisgh Court in a Writ Petition- No system of adoption of child in Mohammaden law. It is only Kafalah, in terms of which only custody can be given to another person, however, the child does not sever relations with biological parents – custody of a minor child in parens patriae jurisdiction – Time gap shows that the respondent No. 2 is not interested in custody of the child – Custody of the child cannot be given to the stranger- the custody of children is the welfare of children and not the right of their parents- when custody of the child was handed over to her, was un-married and is now married having two children will also not be a deterrent – the conclusion that best interest of the child still remains with the appellant No. 2 – Stability of the child is also of paramount consideration- appeal is accordingly allowed.

Surrender petition: Accused should surrender only before the Jurisdictional Magistrate

March 8, 2024

Unless the case diary and the remand report is transmitted to the Magistrate he would not be able to apply his mind effectively for remand – Practice for decade surrendering before non-jurisdictional Magistrates is strange and dubious practice and severely deprecated – Roshan Beevi vs. Joint secretary (1983 MLW (cri) 289) cannot be applied to IPC offences – Remand would be effected even the Magistrate has no jurisdiction.

Section 203 Cr.P.C: Dismissal of complaint: Cause of action for filing complaint is same as is in the filing contempt petition and that fact was not mentioned in the complaint and hence taking cognizance is abuse of process of law

March 7, 2024

Section 203 Cr.P.C: Dismissal of complaint: Cause of action for filing complaint is same as is in the filing contempt petition and that fact was not mentioned in the complaint and hence taking cognizance is abuse of process of law.

NDPS Act: Confession to the police officer is not admissible and hit under section 25 Evidence Act

March 6, 2024

Challenge – Conviction under NDPS Act – Brief Facts – Arrest and interrogation on the spot – Recovered contraband is Ganja – Trial court convicted – High court upheld the conviction – Analysis: Recovery of narcotics from vehicle stopped during transit – Independent panch witnesses not examined – No witnesses or documents to prove the safe keeping of samples – Inventory proceedings were not prepared in the presence of the Jurisdictional Magistrate as per section 52A NDPS Act – Confession to the police officer is not admissible and hit under section 25 Evidence Act – Prosecution failed to prove the charges.

Automatic vacation of stay: Asian Resurfacing judgment resurfaced

March 6, 2024

A Miscellaneous Application was filed in the decided case, in light of the order passed on 4th December 2019 by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. When the learned Magistrate was called upon to proceed with the trial on the ground of automatic vacation of stay after the expiry of a period of six months, the learned Magistrate expressed a view that when the jurisdictional High Court had passed an order of stay, a Court subordinate to the High Court cannot pass any order contrary to the order of stay. By the order dated 15th October 2020, this Court held that when the stay granted by the High Court automatically expires, unless an extension is granted for good reasons, the Trial Court, on expiry of a period of six months, must set a date for trial and go ahead with the same. Later, an attempt was made to seek clarification of the law laid down in the case of Asian Resurfacing [(2018) 16 SCC 299]. This Court, by the order dated 25th April 2022, did not apply the direction issued in Asian Resurfacing to the facts of the case before it. An attempt was made to apply the directions to an order of stay of the order of the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed by a Division Bench in a Letters Patent Appeal. Hence reference to Larger bench and the same was decided by Constitution bench and held the Asian Resurfacing case as per in curium.