Vol-III

Part-2

February, 2008

IMPORTANT CASE LAWS

Compiled by

Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy

Chennai 28

SUPREME COURT CITATIONS

(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 730 (SC)

State of M.P. and Others Vs. Madhukar Rao
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (2 of 1974), Section 451 Wild Life
(Protection) Act (1972), Sections 50 (1) (c) and 39 (d) Question whether vehicle
seized under Section 50 (1) (c) of the Act, 1972, can be directed to be released by a
Magistrate during the pendency of trial in excise of powers under Section 451 of Code of
Criminal Procedure Sub-Inspector, Excise found a Tata Sumo vehicle carrying 206
Kgs. of Antlers Vehicle owned by respondent who was not present at the time of
commission of offence Vehicle was seized Respondent moved a petition before
Judicial Magistrate for release of vehicle on Supurdnama stating that he was not an
accused in the case and not in any way concerned with commission of offence Allowed
Revision filed stating that the order was in disregard to Section 39 (d) of the Act which
holds that seized vehicle becomes property of Government and Magistrate has no power
to release the vehicle Allowed Set aside in Writ Petition filed by Respondent Held,
Section 50 the Act and amendments made do not in anyway affect the Magistrate's power
to make an order of interim release of the vehicle under Section 451 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. Provisions of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
and the amendments thereunder do not in any way affect the
powers of Magistrate to order interim release of the vehicle.
II. Section 39 (1)(d) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 will not
come into effect on mere seizure of the vehicle, before competent
jurisdiction found the accusation and the allegations made
against accused as true and records the finding that the seized
vehicle as a matter of fact was used in the commission of offence.

15

 (2008) 1 CTC 537

Basayya I. Mathad Vs. Rudrayya S. Mathad & Ors.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41, Rule 27 Additional
evidence Practice & Procedure Finding by Appellate Court based on a document
produced at time of argument de hors to Rule 27 of Order 41 of CPC is not sustainable in
eye of law Appellate Court is bound to follow mandate of Rule 27 while dealing with
additional documents.

(2008) 1 MLJ 1253 (SC)

K.R. Mohan Reddy Vs. Network INC. Rep. T.R.M.D.
Code of Civil Procedure ( 5 of 1908), Order 41, Rule 27 (1) (aa) and (b)
Admission of additional evidence by Appellate Court Clause (aa) and (b) of Order 41
Rule 27 Respective scope and applicability Conditions precedent for application of
Order 41 Rule 27 (1) (aa) Cannot admit additional evidence to patch up the weakness in
the evidence of the unsuccessful party can be admitted if the Court requires the
evidence to do justice High Court allowing additional evidence without considering the
provisions of Order 41 Rule 27 in its correct perspective Matter remitted to Trial Court
for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
RATIO DECIDENDI
I. Power of the Appellate Court to pass an Order under Order 41,
Rule 27, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to admit additional
evidence in limited. For exercising its jurisdiction thereunder,
the Appellate Court must arrive at a finding that one or the
other conditions enumerated thereunder is satisfied. A good
reason must also to be shown as to why the evidence was not
produced in the trial Court.

16

 (2008) 1 MLJ 1334 (SC)

Mohanakumaran Nair Vs. Vijayakumaran Nair
Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Section 20 (c) - Territorial jurisdiction
Promissory note executed by appellant in favour of respondent in Soudi Arabia, both
residing and carrying on business there Respondent filing a suit for the recovery of the
amount in the Court at Attingal, Kerala Subsequent to the filing of the suit appellant
voluntarily residing at Kerala Hence contending that the Court at Attingal had territorial
jurisdiction to entertain the suit Held, material date for determining jurisdiction in the
date of institution of the suit Court at Attingal had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit
Change of residence subsequent to filing of the suit would not confer territorial
jurisdiction on the Court which it did not have.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The material date for the purpose of invoking Section 20 of the
Code of Civil Procedure is one of institution of the suit and not
the subsequent change of residence. Change of residence
subsequent to decision of the Court would not confer territorial
jurisdiction in the Court which it did not have.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 523 (SC)
Jaya Simha Vs. State of Karnataka
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), Section 439 Bail
Telgi fake stamps case Telgi arrested and confined in the jail Accused was the
Superintendent of Prison Conspiracy Telgi was permitted to use the mobile phone of
the superintendent of Prison to run his fake stamp business Bail dismissed by the
Special Court Confirmed by the High Court with a liberty to file a petition afresh
Renewal of bail application rejected Correctness of the order challenged Accused in
custody for three years and nine months Similarly placed accused granted bail Benefit
extended Bail granted Appeal allowed.

17
RATIO DECIDENDI

By considering the long incarceration and the bail granted to the

similarly placed persons, the benefit of bail can be extended to
the co-accused.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 490 (SC)
Aleque Padamsee and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Constitution of India (1950), Article 32 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974), Sections 196, 154, 156 Inaction by officials F.I.R. not registered
Alleged inflammatory speeches Likely to disturb communal harmony any cognisable
offence police must register F.I.R. - If not modalities contained in Section 190 read with
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be adopted Writ not
maintainable So far as non-grant of sanction concerned Government to deal with
prayer.

RATIO DECIDENDI
The Police officials ought to register the F.I.R. whenever facts
are brought to their notice show that cognisable offence has
been made out and in case the police official fail to do so, the
modalities said out in Section 190 read with Section 200 Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to be adopted and observed.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 584 (SC)
Sukhram Vs. State of Maharashtra
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 222 Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860), Sections 302 and 201 read with Sections 34 and 304-B, 498-A and
201 read with Section 34 Applicability of Section 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure
Charge of dowry death Soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment with a view to coerce her or her brother to satisfy demand of dowry
Appellant / A2 also charged for having caused disappearance of evidence A2 was

18

convicted under Sections 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code High
Court in appeal set aside conviction of A1 and A2 under Sections 304-B, 498-A, read
with Section 34 but convicted them under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34
Charge of offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code though framed against A1, but
not against A2 Only charge framed against A2 was for offence under Section 201 read
with Section 34 Indian Penal Code Legality Section 222 of Code of Criminal
Procedure clothes the Court with power to convict a person of an offence which is minor
in comparison to the one for which is charged and tried But no stretch of imagination
offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A Indian Penal Code could be said to be minor
offences in relation to that under Section 201 Indian Penal Code for which A2 was
charged and convicted Three offences are distinct and belong to different categories
Section 222 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has no application High Court was not
justified in convicting A2 for major offence under Section 302 Indian Penal Code
Nonetheless, notwithstanding acquittal of the offence under Section 302 Indian Penal
Code, conviction under Section 201 Indian Penal Code, 1860 is permissible.
(B) *****
(C) *****
(D) *****
(E) *****
(F) *****
RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. Section 22 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 clothes the
Court with power to convict a person of an offence which is
minor in comparison to the one for which is charged and tried.
II. In a case based on circumstantial evidence motive assumes
great significance in as much as existence of motive is an
enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning.
III. Notwithstanding acquittal of the offence under Section 302
Indian Penal Code, 1860, conviction under Section 201 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 is permissible.

19

 (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 563 (SC)

Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandrasekhar Mohanty
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Sections 294, 323 Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 482, 468 Demand for illegal gratification
Complaint filed before the SDJM Complaint filed within a period of three days from
date of alleged offence Cognizance taken by Magistrate after period of one year HC
held that cognizance taken after the period of limitation as such barred under Section 468
of the Code Quashed proceedings Aggrieved, this appeal filed questioning the legality
of order Held taking cognizance is the act of Court Neither Prosecuting agency nor
complainant has any control Relevant date of decide limitation is date of filing
complaint Over ruled all previous decisions HC order set aside Appeal allowed.

RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. For the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the
relevant date must be consideration as the date of filing of
complaint or initiating the criminal proceedings and not
the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance
of process by a Court.
II. Court of Law would interpret a provision which would
help sustaining the validity of law by applying the doctrine
of reasonable construction rather than making it vulnerable
and unconstitutional by adopting rule of 'litera legis'.
Connecting the provision of limitation in Section 468 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with issuing of process
or taking of cognizance by the Court may make it
unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution
of India, 1950.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 547 (SC)
Nallapati Sivaiah Vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
(A) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 302 Indian Evidence Act (1 of
1872), Section 32 Murder case Two dying declarations One recorded by Police
Officer and another recorded by the Magistrate In First, recorded during 6.00 p.m., he

20

implicated the Appellant and four others and stated that he went to see cinema in the
noon In Second, recorded during 7.10 p.m., he implicated Appellant and only three
others and stated that he went to see cinema at around 5.00 p.m. - No corroboration
Inconsistencies of If is unsafe to record conviction on the basis of dying declarations
Doctor who was said to have present at the time of recording of declarations was not
examined Fatal to prosecution case Deceased was found as many as 63 injuries out of
which injuries 1 to 13 of 19 on the parietal and occipital regions on account of which the
victim could have gone into coma Nature of injuries Deceased would not be in a
position to make any statement Benefit of doubt given to Appellant Appeal allowed.
(B) Indian Evidence Act ( 1 of 1872), Section 32 Dying declaration
Evidentiary value of In passing upon admissibility of an alleged dying declaration, all
attendant circumstances should be considered, including nature and extent of injuries
Victim receiving as many as 63 injuries on his body including injuries 1 to 13 of 19 on
the parietal and occipital regions Courts have to look for the medical opinion Whether
the deceased was in a fit mental condition Doctor of Forensic Medicine, who conducted
Post Mortem examination opined that the deceased must have died within one or two
hours due to subarchanoid hemorrhage results in patient going into coma and suggest that
the victim could not have deposed for such a long duration of about an hour continuously
between 6.00 p.m. and 7.10 p.m. - His condition was found to be precarious according to
Police Officer, even at 5.30 p.m. - No evidence of treatment if any administered to the
victim Deceased was not in a fit mental condition Dying declarations cannot be acted
upon.
(C)

Indian Evidence Act ( 1 of 1872), Section 32 Dying declaration

Recorded by Magistrate Credibility of Court must not only satisfy that the person
making the Dying declaration was conscious and fit to make statement by placing
exclusive reliance upon the evidence of persons recording dying declaration, but also the
Medical Evidence and surrounding circumstances altogether cannot be ignored.

21

RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. In passing upon admissibility of an alleged dying declaration,
all attendant circumstances should be considered, including
weapon which injured the victim, natue and extent of injuries,
victim's physical condition, his conduct and what was said
to and by him.
II. To test the credibility of dying declaration, the Medical
Evidence and surrounding circumstances altogether cannot
be ignored and kept out of consideration by placing exclusive
reliance upon the testimony of person recording it.
III. It is unsafe to record conviction on the basis of a dying
declaration alone in cases where suspicion is raised as regards
its correctness.

HIGH COURT CITATIONS

(2008) 2 MLJ 344

K. Balaraman Vs. P. Renuka
Code of Civil Procedure Sec.151, Order 8 Rule 9, Order 6, Rule 17 Suit
for recovery of money based on promissory notes and cheque Written statement filed
contending that lesser amount was borrowed and blank cheques and promissory notes
were obtained Application filed seeking permission to file additional written statement
to the efffect that the judgment executed 2 mortgage deeds and borrowed money an on
that day blank papers and cheques obtained from him Dismissed Revision against that
order Amendment of written statement should be liberally considered than amendment
of plaint Petitioner only wants to extend his plea No grave and irretrievable prejudice
to the respondent Civil Revision Petition allowed.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. Prayer of amendment of plaint and amendment of written statement
stand on different footing.
II. Addition of new ground of defence, or substituting or altering a defence
or taking inconsistent pleas in the written statement can be allowed as
long as it does not cause grave injustice to the other party.

22

 (2008) 2 MLJ 382

V. Shanmugam Vs. S. Umamaheswaran
Code of Civil Procedure ( 5 of 1908), Order 18, Rule 17 Constitution of
India (1950), Article 227 Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 165 Recalling
and re-examination of witness Power of Court Power of Court, under Order 18 Rule
17 of Code of Civil Procedure is to be exercised only in exceptional cases Unless the
Trial Court has given reasons which can be described as moon shine, flimsy or irrational,
the rejection of request to recall and reexamine witness, cannot be said to be a nonjudicial approach, warranting interference in revision.

RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. Power of Court under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil
Procedure (5 of 1908) is to be exercised only in exceptional
circumstances.
II. Only when the Trial Court has rejected the request for recalling
and re-examining of witness on reasons which can be described
as moonshine, flimsy or irrational, can such order be interfered
with in Revision by the High Court.
(2008) 2 MLJ 307
Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, rep by its
Director Mr.K.Vishwanath, Bangalore 560 046 Vs. M.G. Brothers Lorry
Service, rep. by its partners, Chennai 600 001 and Others.
(A) *****
(B) Code of Civil Procedure ( 5 of 1908), Order 2 Rule 2 Specific
Relief Act (47 of 1963), Section 34 Suit for declaration that proceedings before DRT
are null and void on account of fraud and collusion Maintainability of Contention
that suit for mere declaration by a person who is out of possession not maintainable
Held, declaratory reliefs sought for are not in respect of title to property but in respect of
proceedings before DRT Also plaintiff reserved his right seek recovery of possession
before appropriate Court To such plaintiff, proviso under Section 34 of Specific Relief
Act would not apply Suit is maintainable.

23

(C) *****
(D) *****
RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. If a suit by a borrower against the bank itself, is not completely
barred by virtue of Section 18 of the Recovery of Debts Due to
Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, the suit by a third
party alleging fraud and collusion against the bank and others,
as a corollary, cannot be held to be not maintainable.
II. There is no procedure for sale by private treaty, provided under
the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions
Act, 1993 and there is absence of power on the part of the DRT to
permit the sale by private treaty. Even the power to sell a secured
asset by private treaty conferred by the SARFAESI Act and the
Rules issued thereunder, is also not an unbridled power, but a
power circumscribed by some procedure, to make the exercise of
such a power, fair, reasonable and devoid of arbitrariness.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 649
Upasana Finance Ltd. rep. by R.Somasundaram, Chennai 600 004 Vs.
State by Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Dharmapuri.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 173 and 190 Order
of Magistrate recording Final Report referring matter as mistake of fact without issuing
notice Legality Magistrate should issue notice to the informant and afford him an
opportunity to raise his objections by filing protest petition Impugned order set aside,
direction issued.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The Magistrate should issue notice to the informant and afford him
an opportunity to raise his objections by filing protest petition at the
time of recording the Final Report of Police referring matter as
mistake of fact.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 593
Michelraj and Another Vs. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of
Police, All Women Police Station, Aranthangi, Pudukottai District
(A) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 304-B Indian Evidence Act ( 1
of 1872), Section 113-B Dowry death Expression Soon before - Is a relative term

24

and it would depend upon the circumstances of each case Prosecution is obliged to
show before the occurrence there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case
presumption operates HiraLal Vs. State (Government of NCT), Delhi AIR 2003 SC
2865 relied on.
(B) *****

RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. The prosecution is obliged to show that soon before the occurrence
there was cruelty or harassment and only in that case presumption
operates.
II. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect
of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.
(2008) 1 CTC 491
S. Gopal Vs. D. Balachandran
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ( 1 of 1872), Section 45 Cheque admittedly signed
by drawer cannot be sought to be analysed by an expert for opinion as to age of ink used
in cheque Age of ink cannot be determined by an expert with scientific accuracy and
use of old ink on purpose would only dent opinion of expert and result in further
confusion.
Drawer of cheque admitting his signature in the cheque contending that the same
was a blank one and it was therefore required to be sent to the expert for opinion with
regard to the age of the ink to prove that the blank cheque was misused. Magistrate
dismissed the Application on the ground that there was no necessity to send the cheque
for expert opinion when the accused had admitted the signature in the cheque.
Held, age of the ink cannot be determined by expert with scientific accuracy.
Even then, if there is use of old ink on purpose, it would result in only further confusion

25

and create a dent in the opinion of the expert. No necessity, therefore, for sending
disputed cheque admittedly signed by the drawer, to an expert for opinion. Revision
dismissed.
(Paras 13 to 15)
(2008) 1 CTC 503
Nataraj @ T. Natarajan Vs. P. Venkatachalam
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138, Proviso to
Section 142 Dishonour of Cheque - Belated Complaint Taking cognizance of such
Complaint Procedure to be followed Complaint was filed after delay of 10 days
without condone delay Petition with Affidavit Magistrate took cognizance of case and
ordered issue of process Failure on part of Court below to follow such procedure and
not giving opportunity of hearing to accused on condone delay Petition affects valuable
right of Petitioner/accused is affected If such defect is pointed out to Complainant, he
could have filed Petition seeking condonation of delay - Matter is remitted back by
setting aside order taking cognizance and issue of process.
Complaint has been filed after a delay of 10 days and cognizance had been taken
and process ordered to be issued when admittedly complainant had not filed Petition to
condone delay and without Court condoning delay.
Accused/Petitioner filed Quash Petition challenging validity of such taking
cognizance and issue of process by Magistrate without filing condone delay petition
supported with Affidavit on grounds of illegal and invalid for want of holding enquiry on
condone delay Petition would amount to denial of opportunity of hearing. Further,
contended that No liberty can be given to file condone delay Petition as it will amount to
filing a Complaint on a second cause of action.
Held, that ends of Justice will be met if order of Magistrate taking cognizance of
Complaint and issuing process is set aside and matter is remitted back to Magistrate to

26

give an opportunity to complainant to file condone delay Petition and to issue Notice to
petitioner/accused and after giving an opportunity of hearing order should be passed in
Petition seeking condone delay. Plea for not to grant liberty is untenable since there is
absolutely no question of arising of second cause of action in this case.
(Paras 8 & 9)
Practice and Procedure Dishonour of Cheque case Necessity to file condone
delay Application with affidavit in case of belated Complaint Proper procedure to be
followed If there is any delay in filing Complaint complainant should file condone
delay Petition that on such filing Magistrate should issue notice to accused After giving
opportunity of hearing to accused, cause shown for delay to be considered Magistrate
should satisfy himself first and pass appropriate order by accepting or rejecting condone
delay Petition Failure to follow such procedure affects valuable right of accused.
(para 7)
(2008) 1 CTC 619
Jaleel Ramjan Sha Vs. State, represented by Inspector of Police, R-1
Mambalam Police Station, Chennai, Crime No.1234/2002
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 309 Remand of
Accused on bail Non-bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued on account of absence of
Accused Accused was arrested in some other case P.T. Warrant was issued Entire
docket orders do not show about pendency of P.T. warrants Docket orders for
subsequent date of hearings disclose that Non-bailable Warrant (NBW) was pending
Accused was produced on memo of Chief Judicial Magistrate Accused was remanded
Remand order was set aside.
(Para 15)
Petitioner/Accused challenged order of remand passed when he was on bail and
he was remanded to judicial custody in connection some other criminal case in

27

Maharashtra. His absence for some hearings was condoned under Section 317 of Cr.P.C.
On 26.12.2005, Non-bailable Warrant (NBW) was issued for his absence. On coming to
know about his arrest for some other case, P.T. warrant was issued. On subsequent date
of hearings it was noted on docket orders that Non-bailable Warrant (NBW) was pending.
Chief Judicial Magistrate issued memo to Superintendent of Central Prison, Kalamba in
Maharashtra State to cause production of Accused. After repeated memos, Accused was
produced ultimately on 06.06.2006. Chief Judicial Magistrate remanded Accused from
said date which is challenged by Accused.
Held, that after issuance of P.T. Warrant, continuance of Non-bailable Warrant
(NBW) could not be justified and that when bail granted to Accused was in existence
remanding him when he was produced on P.T. warrant is not legally sustainable.
(Para 15)
(2008) 2 MLJ 16
Vincent Lourdhenathan Dominique and Another Vs. Josephine Syla
Dominique
Family Arrangement Impugned order rejecting claim of defendants / revision
petitioners to mark agreement in question Agreement sought to be marked has created
title and interest and could not be treated as recording of factum of division already taken
place As such, said agreement could not be marked as a document since it requires to
be properly stamped and registered so as to be admitted in evidence Revision petition
dismissed.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. To decide about the nature of a document whether it requires to be
stamped or to be registered, it is the contents of the document that
are to be taken into consideration and not the nomenclature alone.
If an agreement itself creates a right for the first time as a document,
then one has to consider the contents of the agreement, instead of
the nomenclature.

28

II. When there is no recital in the agreement to the effect that it is for
recording the earlier partition which had already taken place the
said agreement was entered and when the agreement is purported
to create, declare, assign, limit and extinguish right, title and interest
over the immovable properties, such document is required to be
properly stamped and duly registered so as to be admissible in
evidence.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 427
Mohammed Ashan Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of
Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-17
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 482 Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985) Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872),
Section 30 Allegation that accused No.1 and 2 were found in possession of heroin
supplied by Accused No.3 Complaint filed in the year 1993 Case against some
accused persons split up and ended in acquittal Not challenged Absconding accused
No.3 arrested in a different case at Karnataka Except the retracted confession of the coaccused, no other incriminating materials Quash petition filed Objection that the
accused should face trial, cannot be entertained No material to frame the charges
Confession of co-accused cannot be used, unless jointly tried- Proceedings quashed
Petition allowed.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
When the case against the split up accused ended in acquittal,
there is no purpose in conducting trial against others on the
basis of the confession of the co-accused which is inadmissible
in evidence unless, jointly tried.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 471
S.Ilayaperumal Vs. Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation,
Anti Corruption Branch, Chennai 600 006.
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 120-B Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 197, 227 Petitioner appointed as investigation
officer to investigate certain case Allegation that no proper investigation conducted by

29

petitioner Alleged conspiracy between petitioner and other accused in said case and
thereby he facilitated other accused to elude from clutches of law Impugned order
dismissing petition filed by petitioner to discharge him from proceedings against him
From available records, it is clear that without examining relevant witnesses petitioner
created bogus records and there was conspiracy entered into between petitioner and other
accused As charge is under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, no permission
required under Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Even assuming that
there is misjoinder of charges, petitioner not liable to be discharged on such ground
Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
I. If any Government servant has done any offence in connection
with his discharge of official duty, permission under Section 197
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is absolutely required.
The offence under Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, 1860
cannot be done in discharge of official duty. Therefore, no
permission is required under Section 197 of the Code to proceed
against a Government Servant under Section 120-B of Indian
Penal Code.
II. Even though there is a misjoinder of charges in a particular case,
the same can be rectified at any point of time before completing
trial. As such, simply because there is a misjoinder of charges,
the particular accused cannot be discharged from the proceedings
of that particular criminal case.
(2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 398
National Federation of Indian Women Vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 228-A Publication of
photographs and details of victim of sexual offence In news papers, journals, magazines
and electric medias Falls under Section 228-A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 Petitioner
can invoke provision under Section 228-A Circular dated 15.7.2002 by D.I.G. of Police
should be implemented in letter and spirit Writ disposed of with this above said
direction to all the police officials in the State.
*****

30