Total Pageviews

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 131
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
CR No.1594 of 1991
Mannu (minor)
v.
Pritam Singh
{Decided on 16/12/2008}
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Alok Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: None.
Auction sale--Setting aside of--Objection by legal heirs rejected on ground that they became owner of property on date of passing of decree whereas property was sold prior to that date--Not proper as inheritance was never in abeyance--Objections to be heard.
Civil Procedure--Execution--Auction sale--Setting aside of--Sale of Cold Store in auction--Objections filed by petitioners, legal heirs of proprietor of cold store regarding validity of sale--Rejected on ground that petitioner became owners of 2/3 share in property on date of passing of decree whereas property was sold prior to that date--Held; Not justified as entitlement to inherent 2/3 share of petitioners would relate back to death of original owner as succession never remain in abeyance--Moreover, cold store which was propreitory concern could not be maintained through its manager--Case remanded to consider objections filed by petitioner taking them to be owner of property on date of death of proprietor of cold store--|Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 21, Rules 54, 66 and 90. (Para 9, 10, 21, 22 & 25)

------------------
v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 134 (SC)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam
Civil Appeal No. 6198 of 2008 with Civil Appeal Nos. 6200-6201 of 2008
Nirmal Singh Kahlon
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 22/10/2008}
For the Appearing Parties : Mr. P.P. Malhotra, A.S.G., Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr. L.N. Rao, Sr. Advocates, Mr. A.K. Pandey, Mr. Aseem Malhotra, Ms. Sunita R. Singh, Ms. Shefali Jain, Mr. Purushottam S.T., Ms. Sahar Bakht, Utsav, Mr. Febin A.K., Mr. Rajesh Prasad Singh, Mr. Amit Kumar, Mr. Satyakam, Mr. B.K. Prasad, Mr. P. Parmeswaran, Ajay Pal, Mr. Nikhil Jain and Mr. Pranab Kumar Mullick, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
FIR--Recruitment scam by Minister surfaced by police--FIR lodged and charge sheet filed--Involvement of large number of persons--CBI ordered to conduct investigation--CBI lodged second FIR on finding larger scam--Second FIR not illegal.
(A) Criminal Law--FIR--Lodging of Second FIR--Whether illegal--FIR against one former Minister regarding illegal appointments made by him after accepting bribe--Police conducted investigation and filed chargesheet--State Govt. handed over the investigation to CBI--CBI found larger scam in recruitments made by Minister--Second FIR lodged by CBI--Held; offence did not remain the same offence--Second FIR not illegal--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154-157 and 173--Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6. (Para 58-62)
(B) Criminal Law--Investigation--Further investigation to CBI--Police investigated offence and submitted chargesheet--More persons involved ; large conspiracy brought to surface--State requested CBI to conduct further investigation--State Govt. has absolute power over investigation and it can order further investigation by CBI--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 173(8)--Police Act, 1861, Section 3--|Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1996, Sections 6 and 36. (Para 61)
(C) Criminal Law--Investigation--Corruption case against Minister--Scam found serious and involvement of more persons--High Court asked State Govt. to refer investigation to CBI--Order of High Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution in public interest held to be valid--|Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 154-157--Delhi Police Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6. (Para 58-63)
(D) Criminal Law--Investigation by CBI--CBI Manual framed by Union of India give power to Supreme Court and High Court to direct investigation by CBI--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 2(h) and 154-157--Delhi Special Public Establishment Act, 1946, Section 6. (Para 57 and 62)
(E) Criminal Law--Investigation--Fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation of fundamental right of an accused--Accused and victim are equally entitled to same--|Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14, 20 and 21. (Para 27)
(F) Criminal Law--Public Interest Litigation--Private Interest Litigation--High Court can initiate a suo motu public interest litigation--In public interest litigation, court need not strictly follow the ordinary procedure--|Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 227. (Para 32)
--------------------
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
2009(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) (DB) 150
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
(DIVISION BENCH)
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.S. Garewal
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
Crl. Appeal No. 132 DB of 2007
Dalip Singh
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 19/12/2008}
For the Appellant: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. V.K. Jindal, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. P.S. Sullar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
IMPORTANT POINT
Bail--Grant of--If a court is satisfied that the accused will resist tampering with evidence or try to abscond, the court should not hesitate from granting bail. Heavy amount of bond can be imposed with a local surety. The accused can be required to submit himself to police surveillance or electronic surveillance to keep a tag on him.
Suspension of sentence pending appeal--Division Bench judgments in the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, requires re-consideration--Referred to Full Bench.
(A) Criminal Law--Bail--FIR under Section 302 IPC--Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. entitles an accused to be released on bail if trial before Magistrate is not concluded within 60 days from the first date of recording of evidence--An accused can also be released on bail after 60/90 days where investigation has not been concluded as provided in proviso 2 of Section 167 of Cr.P.C.--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 437(6). (Para 6)
(B) Criminal Law--Bail--Grant of--If a court is satisfied that the accused will resist tampering with evidence or try to abscond, the court should not hesitate from granting bail. Heavy amount of bond can be imposed with a local surety. The accused can be required to submit himself to police surveillance or electronic surveillance to keep a tag on him--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439. (Para 11)
(C) Criminal Law--Detention during trial destroys the man, bail saves him from ill affects of detention and yet makes him available to receive sentence, if he is convicted--Convicts get paid some daily wage--Undertrials get nothing, they lose their jobs, their families are deprived of income, their children are unable to pursue studies--Therefore, bail ought to be considered by the trial court itself after 180 days from the date of commencement of the prosecution evidence--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439.(Paras 11, 12 & 13)
(D) Criminal Law--Suspension of sentence pending appeal--FIR under Section 302 IPC--Period of detention undergone by the accused is set off against the sentence of imprisonment--Undertrial period should be added to the post conviction period and an appellant who has completed 5 years in all should be entitled to suspension of sentence automatically--When the undertrial period is also counted towards sentence then it should not make any difference if the appellant has or has not done three years after conviction--In view of these aspect Division Bench judgments in the case of Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 600 and Daler Singh v. State of Punjab, 2007(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 390 requires re-consideration--Referred to Full Bench--|Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 389 & 428. (Paras 16, 17)
-----------------------