Extra-Judicial confession: VAO is total stranger and no necessity for the accused to trust him to confess
Prayer-Consideration-List of witnesses and their roles in the case-Deceased died of asphyxia due to drowning and the external injuries could have caused when the body was taken out of well-Witnesses hardly establish the motive-Brothers-in-law of deceased though seen the deceased with the appellants did not make any effort to complaint-P.W-1 is stranger to A3 and no necessity for A3 to trust and confess to P.W-1-Prosecution has not proved that the accused attacked the deceased with stones-Hon’ble Madras High Court acquitted the accused.
Cognizance taken without sanction does not prevent ED to seek cognizance again after obtaining the necessary sanction
**Factual Aspect**: This appeal addresses the quashing of a complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) against a public servant due to the absence of the required sanction. **Consideration of Submissions**: In accordance with Section 197(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), government servants can only be prosecuted with prior sanction for actions carried out in the course of their official duties. Several important points arise: 1. The accused has the opportunity to present the lack of sanction as a defense after cognizance has been taken. 2. It is essential that the actions described in the complaint are linked to the performance of their official responsibilities. Notably, no provisions within the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are in conflict with Section 197(1) CrPC. While the cognizance taken by the Special Court lacks validity due to the absence of sanction, this situation opens the door for the ED to seek cognizance again in the future, provided they obtain the necessary sanction. This path forward allows for adherence to legal requirements while ensuring accountability.
Court Martial Murder Case: Armed Forces Tribunal: Order of acquittal enhances the presumption of innocence
In the case at hand, the respondent was initially tried and convicted by a General Court Martial under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC); However, the Armed Forces Tribunal later acquitted the respondent. The circumstances leading to the incident involved the deceased allegedly misbehaving towards the wife of Accused No. 3, which prompted an inquiry. The deceased was transported in a gypsy vehicle during which he jumped out and fell into a ditch, resulting in serious injuries and subsequent death in the hospital. A postmortem examination revealed antemortem injuries to the skull and brain, and it was admitted in cross-examination that a hard surface, akin to a floor, could have caused the blunt force trauma. Notably, there was no allegation made that the deceased was assaulted before entering the gypsy. The prosecution claimed that the respondent was seen walking with a bamboo stick, which was never recovered. The Supreme Court found no evidence to support the assertion that the respondent had assaulted the deceased, reinforcing the presumption of innocence following the Tribunal’s order of acquittal.
Sale is not a Contract
The Supreme Court ruled that a minor can be a transferee of immovable property through a sale deed, as a sale is not considered a contract. The Court also affirmed that a minor’s transfer of property upon attaining majority cannot be challenged due to their previous minor status.
No onerous bail conditions: Condition imposed by the Hon’ble High Court directing the accused to demolish the wall of the complainant at accused’s cost tantamount to deprivation of civil rights rather than to ensure the accused’s presence during trial
This appeal addresses the bail condition set by the Hon’ble High Court, which mandates the removal of the complainant’s wall at the expense of the accused. An FIR has been registered under sections 294, 323, 506, 447, 147, 148, and 458 IPC, alleging that the appellants forcefully entered the complainant’s property by breaking down a wall and assaulting his family members. This is the second bail application submitted, contesting the onerous conditions imposed by the Hon’ble High Court. The onerous conditions include the direction to remove the wall at the appellants’ expense and to return possession of the disputed property to the complainant. It is important to note that conditions imposed must be reasonable and not overly burdensome, as analyzed in various judgments. The purpose of imposing conditions is to facilitate the administration of justice and to ensure the presence of the accused. In this instance, the Hon’ble High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by requiring the demolition of the wall at the expense of the appellants. Finally Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order and modified the condition.
Closure report & PMLA: Closure report filed in predicate offence deserves to be challenged to continue proceedings under PMLA hence though the ED is neither aggrieved person nor victim it may approach the High Court as ED is connected to the issue
**Brief Facts of the Case** Information regarding the sale proceeds of lottery tickets led to an FIR under the IPC and PMLA. Cash was seized from A1’s house, and a statement from the stamp vendor was recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA. The case involved the fabrication of a document (stamp paper) dated prior to the government’s sale to the vendor. A Single Judge of the Madras High Court quashed the proceedings against A3, which the State challenged with a Special Leave Petition (SLP) accepted by the Apex Court. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a complaint, but requests for discharge by A1, A3, and A4 were dismissed by the Principal District Judge of Chennai. The state police filed a closure report on the IPC offense, accepted by the Judicial Magistrate. The ED then sought to dispose of the SLP. **Discussions** The ED aimed to quash the closure report filed by the state police, asserting the maintainability of the petition to contest the closure report and the continuation of proceedings under the PMLA. It was clarified that any party connected to the case could approach the High Court. An analysis of judgments indicated that accepting the closure report was a mechanical order leading to a miscarriage of justice. **Conclusion** The closure report and the magistrate’s acceptance of it have been set aside.
Subject Study on Examination of Witness
Judgments related to Cross-examination including contradiction is being listed.
