Vol -VI March, 2011

Part-3
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
Compiled by
Tamil Nad Stat! "dicial Acad!m#
Ch!$$ai % 2&
S'PREME CO'RT CITATIONS
CIVIL CASE
2011-1( L(W( 1
Sh#amrao Maroti )or*at!
+,
-!!.a/ )i,a$rao T!/am
0ardia$, a$d Ward, Act 122 o3 1&405, S!ctio$, 6, 7, &, 178P!r,o$, !$titl!d to a..l#
3or ord!r a, to 9ardia$,hi., W!l3ar! o3 mi$or i, th! .aramo$t co$,id!ratio$, :i$d
Mi$orit# a$d 0ardia$,hi. Act 1; o3 142;5, S!ctio$, ;, 138-!3i$itio$ o3 <Mi$or=,
0ardia$(
I$ a matt!r o3 c,tod# o3 a mi$or child, th! .aramo$t co$,id!ratio$ i, th! >*!l3ar!
o3 th! mi$or?, a$d $ot ri9ht, o3 th! .ar!$t, or r!lati+!, $d!r a ,tatt! *hich ar! i$ 3orc!(
R!,.o$d!$t-3ath!r 9ot marri!d *ithi$ a #!ar a3t!r th! d!ath o3 hi, 3ir,t *i3! a$d
al,o ha+i$9 a ,o$ thro9h th! ,!co$d marria9!, r!,idi$9 i$ a rral +illa9!, *or/i$9 at a
di,ta$c! o3 40 /m, % Tho9h 3ath!r i, th! $atral 9ardia$ i$ r!,.!ct o3 a mi$or child,
Child *a, all alo$9 *ith th! mat!r$al 9ra$d-3ath!r a$d hi, 3amil# ,i$c! @irth, r!,idi$9 i$ a
Tal/a C!$tr! *h!r! th! child i, 9!tti$9 9ood !dcatio$--i,trict "d9! *a, A,ti3i!d i$
a..oi$ti$9 th! a..!lla$t mat!r$al 9ra$d3ath!r a, 9ardia$ o3 th! mi$or child 1a, o$ dat!
a9! & #!ar,5 till th! a9! o3 12 #!ar,(
O$ attai$i$9 th! a9! o3 12 #!ar, @# th! mi$or, th! 3ath!r i, 3r!! to ma/! a 3r!,h
a..licatio$ a$d d!.!$di$9 o$ th! *!l3ar! a$d *i,h o3 th! child, 3rth!r ord!r ha, to @!
.a,,!d i$ th! matt!r o3 c,tod#(
:i$d Mi$orit# a$d 0ardia$,hi. Act 1; o3 142;5, S!ctio$, ;, 138-!3i$itio$ o3
<Mi$or=, 0ardia$ % S!! 0ardia$, a$d Ward, Act 122 o3 1&405, S!ctio$, 6, 7, &,
178P!r,o$, !$titl!d to a..l# 3or ord!r a, to 9ardia$,hi., W!l3ar! o3 mi$or i, th!
.aramo$t co$,id!ratio$(
120115 1 S.r!m! Cort Ca,!, 12&
-(R( RAT:NA M'RT:B
+,
RAMAPPA
Tra$,3!r o3 Pro.!rt# Act, 1&&2 % S,( 26 a$d 2&1c5 % Sal! *h!th!r a@,olt! or
co$ditio$al % -!t!rmi$atio$ o3 % Cactor, to @! co$,id!r!d % R!co$+!#a$c! cla,! i$,!rt!d
i$ $,al ma$$!r at 3oot o3 d!!d a@o+! ,i9$atr!, % I$t!rli$!atio$, *!r! $ot ,i9$!d or
att!,t!d @# a..!lla$t +!$dor, th! !D!cta$t, % O$ 3act,, h!ld, i$t!rli$!atio$, *!r! mad!
2
a3t!r !D!ctio$ o3 docm!$t @t @!3or! r!9i,tratio$ % R!co$+!#a$c! cla,! *a, i$,!rt!d
*ithot co$,!$t a$d /$o*l!d9! o3 r!,.o$d!$t @#!r % R!,.o$d!$t @#!r?, mi$d did $ot 9o
*ith hi, ha$d at tim! o3 r!9i,tratio$ *h!$ h! .t hi, thm@ im.r!,,io$ % Th,, h!ld, ,ch
additio$, ar! $ot @i$di$9 % Crth!r, co$tract @!i$9 ,!+!ra@l!, ,ch additio$, @!i$9 +oid
ca$$ot ta/! !33!ct % Co$tract Act, 1&72 % S,( 21@5, 1h5, 10 13 a$d 16 % Co$tract a$d S.!ci3ic
R!li!3 % Cormatio$ -!3!ct, % Void a$d Voida@l! Co$tract, % Cormatio$ -!3!ct, R!$d!ri$9
Co$tract, Void % Mi,ta/! % No$ !,t 3actm % -!3!$c! o3 % Wh!$ ma# @! claim!d % I$ ca,!
o3 thm@ im.r!,,io$ % R!9i,tratio$ Act, 140& % S( 20 % )ar$ata/a R!9i,tratio$ Rl!,, 14;2
% R( 62(
R!9i,tratio$ Act, 140& % S( 20 % Att!,tatio$ o3 i$t!rli$!atio$, % N!c!,,it# o3 % No
,i9$atr!, att!,ti$9 i$t!rli$!atio$, % :!ld, att!,tatio$ o3 ,al! d!!d i, im.!rati+! %
Att!,tatio$ a$d !D!ctio$ ar! di33!r!$t act, % )ar$ata/a R!9i,tratio$ Rl!,, 14;2 % R( 62 %
Co$tract a$d S.!ci3ic R!li!3 % Cormatio$ o3 co$tract % Co$,!$,, ad id!m % -!!d, a$d
-ocm!$t, % Cormal r!Eir!m!$t, - Att!,tatio$ di,ti$9i,h!d 3rom !D!ctio$ % E+id!$c!
Act, 1&72 % S,( ;6, ;2 a$d ;& % Word, a$d Phra,!, % <Att!,t=, <!D!ct!=(
The appellant sold the land by registered deed the very next day of purchase for the same
consideration for what he had purchased. Allegedly, the appellant had a right to repurchase the
land for the same consideration within ten years from the execution of sale deed, it being a
conditional sale. The respondent contested the suit of specific performance instituted by the
appellant herein alleging manipulation in sale deed after its execution and before registration.
Contended the insertion of reconveyance clause was without the consent and knowledge of the
respondent; therefore, he cannot be bound by the said terms. The igh Court allowing the
second appeal instituted by the respondent herein, holding that it was absolute sale, upheld the
trial court!s order of dismissal of suit. ence the present appeal.
:!ldF
After examining the certified copy of the said sale deed, it is found that the provisions of
"ule #2 of the $%&' "ules have not been complied with. (othing has been endorsed at the foot
of the sale deed, nor it bears signatures of the appellant executant. The word )avadhi* has been
inserted at three places in the margin of the sale deed. +t has not been attested by the executant.
The part ,xt. -.2 had been inserted in ,xt. /.# in an unusual manner. The entire sale deed has
been scribed in double space while the part ,xt. -.2 is in single space. +t was necessary to do so
as the parties had already signed the document. ad it been written in ordinary course, it could
have gone below the signatures of the parties in the sale deed. Therefore, it is crystal clear that
such insertion had been made to convert the absolute sale deed into a conditional sale deed. The
manner in which interlineations have been made in the document itself reveals that addition was
made subse0uent to the execution of the document otherwise there was enough space to insert
such a clause in the same manner in which the entire sale deed had been scribed.
ad it been a case of conditional sale, the appellant executor could have asked the
respondent buyer to wait for mutation or raise the ob1ection before the "evenue Authorities in
spite of the fact that mutation is a revenue entry and does not refer to the title of the land. ad it
been the case of conditional sale enabling the appellant to repurchase the land any time within ten
years, the respondent could not have spent a huge amount of his life savings for improving the
land, nor would he have dug a well in the suit land spending twenty thousand of rupees. The
aforesaid circumstances make it clear that the respondent buyer had never agreed for
reconveyance.
2
2011-1( L(W( 3&2
I$dia$ Oil Cor.oratio$ Ltd( G oth!r,
+,
S@rata Horah Cho*l!/, !tc
Limitatio$ Act, S!ctio$ 28=S33ici!$t ca,!=, S!r+ic!, R!9lari,atio$ o3
a..oi$tm!$t,(
-i+i,io$ H!$ch o3 th! 0ahati :i9h Cort, r!A!ct!d a..!lla$t,? a..licatio$ ,!!/i$9
co$do$atio$ o3 d!la# o3 24 da#, i$ .r!3!rri$9 th! a..!al a$d th!ir *rit a..!al *a,
di,mi,,!d i$ limi$! a, @!i$9 @arr!d @# limitatio$(
It *a, .l!ad!d that th! d!la# o3 24 da#, *a, occa,io$!d @!ca,! o3 tim! ta/!$ @# th!
com.a$#?, co$,lta$t at -!lhi, mai$l# o$ acco$t o3 ,mm!r +acatio$(
I$ th! i$,ta$t ca,! a ,33ici!$t ca,! had @!!$ mad! ot 3or co$do$atio$ o3 d!la# i$
3ili$9 th! a..!al a$d th!r!3or!, th! :i9h Cort !rr!d i$ d!cli$i$9 to co$do$! th! ,am! % It
i, trit! that i$ co$,tri$9 ,33ici!$t ca,!, th! Cort, 9!$!rall# 3ollo* a li@!ral a..roach
.articlarl# *h!$ $o $!9li9!$c!, i$actio$ or mala 3id!, ca$ @! im.t!d to th! .art#(
Tho9h S!ctio$ 2 !$+i,a9!, !D.la$atio$ o3 d!la# to th! ,ati,3actio$ o3 th! Cort, a$d
ma/!, $o di,ti$ctio$ @!t*!!$ th! Stat! a$d th! citiI!$, $o$!th!l!,, ado.tio$ o3 a ,trict
,ta$dard o3 .roo3 i$ ca,! o3 th! 0o+!r$m!$t, *hich i, d!.!$da$t o$ th! actio$, o3 it,
o33icial,, *ho o3t!$ do $ot ha+! a$# .!r,o$al i$t!r!,t i$ it, tra$,actio$,, ma# l!ad to 9ra+!
mi,carria9! o3 A,tic! a$d th!r!3or!, c!rtai$ amo$t o3 latitd! i, .!rmi,,i@l! i$ ,ch ca,!,(
2011-1( L(W( 346
T(0( A,ho/ )mar
+,
0o+i$dammal G A$oth!r
Tra$,3!r o3 Pro.!rt# Act 11&&25, S!ctio$ 228Li, P!$d!$,, Pri$ci.l!, R!9i,tratio$ Act
1140&5, S!ctio$ 27, -!,ira@ilit# o3 Ali!$atio$ @# co-o*$!r, Co$,id!ratio$,, EEit#,
R!9i,tratio$ o3 Sal! A9r!!m!$t, com.l,or# ,99!,t!d to di,cora9! 9!$!ratio$ a$d
circlatio$ o3 @lac/ mo$!# i$ r!al !,tat! matt!r,, a, al,o $d!r+alatio$ o3 docm!$t, 3or
.r.o,!, o3 ,tam. dt#(
Wh!r! a co-o*$!r ali!$at!, a .ro.!rt# or a .ortio$ o3 a .ro.!rt# r!.r!,!$ti$9 to @!
th! a@,olt! o*$!r, !Eiti!, ca$ $o do@t @! adA,t!d *hil! ma/i$9 th! di+i,io$ dri$9 th!
3i$al d!cr!! .roc!!di$9,, i3 3!a,i@l! a$d .ractical(
I3 th! titl! o3 th! .!$d!$t lit! tra$,3!ror i, r!co9$iI!d or acc!.t!d o$l# i$ r!9ard to a
.art o3 th! tra$,3!rr!d .ro.!rt#, th!$ th! tra$,3!r!!?, titl! *ill @! ,a+!d o$l# i$ r!9ard to
that !Dt!$t a$d th! tra$,3!r i$ r!9ard to th! r!mai$i$9 .ortio$ o3 th! tra$,3!rr!d .ro.!rt#
to *hich th! tra$,3!ror i, 3o$d $ot !$titl!d, *ill @! i$+alid a$d th! tra$,3!r!! *ill $ot 9!t
a$# ri9ht, titl! or i$t!r!,t i$ that .ortio$(
A ,it 3or .artitio$ 3il!d @# th! 1
,t
r!,.o$d!$t a9ai$,t th! ,!co$d r!,.o$d!$t *hich
i$cld!d th! ,it .ro.!rt#, *a, .!$di$9 i$ a cort o3 com.!t!$t Ari,dictio$ o$ th! dat! o3
#
,al! @# th! 2
$d
r!,.o$d!$t i$ 3a+or o3 th! a..!lla$t % Partitio$ ,it *a, $ot coll,i+! % Sal!
@# th! 2
$d
r!,.o$d!$t i$ 3a+or o3 th! a..!lla$t did $ot i$ a$# *a# a33!ct th! ri9ht o3 th! 1
,t
r!,.o$d!$t 1.lai$ti33 i$ th! .artitio$ ,it5 or th! d!cr!! mad! i$ h!r 3a+or i$ th! ,aid
.artitio$ ,it % Sal! @# 2
$d
r!,.o$d!$t i$ 3a+or o3 th! a..!lla$t tho9h $ot +oid, did $ot
@i$d th! 1
,t
r!,.o$d!$t *ho *a, th! .lai$ti33 i$ th! .artitio$ ,it % Sal! .!$d!$t! lit! *old
@! ,@A!ct to th! d!cr!! .a,,!d i$ th! .artitio$ ,it % I$ th! 3i$al d!cr!! .a,,!d i$ th!
.artitio$ ,it, th! maAor .ortio$ o3 th! ,it .ro.!rt# *a, allott!d to th! ,har! o3 th! 1
,t
r!,.o$d!$t a$d to that !Dt!$t, th! ,al! i$ 3a+or o3 th! a..!lla$t *old @! i$!33!cti+! - Ht
i$ r!9ard to th! r!mai$i$9 .ortio$ o3 th! ,it .ro.!rt# % It i, !33!cti+!, +alid a$d @i$di$9 o$
th! 2
$d
r!,.o$d!$t a$d to that !Dt!$t, th! a..!lla$t i, !$titl!d to a d!claratio$ o3 titl! a$d
co$,!E!$tial i$A$ctio$(
Sit O9ht $ot to ha+! @!!$ di,mi,,!d i$ !$tir!t# !+!$ i3 th! ,al! @# th! ,!co$d
r!,.o$d!$t i$ 3a+or o3 a..!lla$t *a, hit @# th! doctri$! o3 li, .!$d!$, % Cort, @!lo*
o9ht to ha+! d!cr!!d th! a..!lla$t?, ,it i$ .art, i$ r!9ard to th! .ortio$ o3 th! ,it
.ro.!rt# that 3!ll to th! ,har! o3 ,!co$d r!,.o$d!$t(
:!ldF
The principle underlying 3ection '2 is clear. +f during the pendency of any suit in a court
of competent 1urisdiction which is not collusive, in which any right of an immovable property is
directly and specifically in 0uestion, such property cannot be transferred by any part to the suit so
as to affect the rights of any other party to the suit under any decree that may be made in such
suit. +f ultimately the title of the pendent lite transferor is upheld in regard to the transferred
property, the transferee!s title will not be affected. 4n the other hand, if the title of the pendent
lite transferor is recogni5ed or accepted only in regard to a part of the transferred property, then
the transferee!s title will be saved only in regard to that extent and the transfer in regard to the
remaining portion of the transfer property to which the transferor is found not entitled, will be
invalid and the transferee will not get any right, title or interest in that portion. +f the property
transferred pendent lite, is allotted in entirely to some other part or parties or if the transferor is
held to have no right or title in that property, the transferee will not have any title to the property.
6here a co.owner alienates a property or a portion of a property representing to be the absolute
owner, e0uities can no doubt be ad1usted while making the division during the final decree
proceedings, if feasible and practical 7that is without causing loss or hardship or inconvenience to
other parties8 by allotting the property or portion of the property transferred pendent lite, to the
share of the transferor, so that the bonafide transferee!s right and title are saved fully or partially.
2011-1( L(W( 602
:ar Narai$ 1-!ad5 @# LR,(
+,
Mam Cha$d 1-!ad5 @# LR,( G Oth!r,
Tra$,3!r o3 Pro.!rt# Act 11&&25, S!ctio$ 26 8 Sal!, Wh!$ !33!cti+!, dat! o3 !D!ctio$,
R!9i,tratio$, Sco.!, S!ctio$ 228-octri$! o3 Li, P!$d!$,,
R!9i,tratio$ Act 1142&5, S!ctio$ 67, R!9i,tratio$ o3 th! ,al! d!!d r!lati$9 @ac/ to th!
dat! o3 th! !D!ctio$ o3 th! docm!$t, Sco.!(
S.!ci3ic R!li!3 Act 114;35, S!ctio$ 141@5(
'
I$ ,.it! o3 th! 3act that th! r!9i,tratio$ o3 th! ,al! d!!d *old r!lat! @ac/ to th! dat!
o3 !D!ctio$, th! ,al! ca$$ot @! t!rm!d a, com.l!t! $til it, r!9i,tratio$, a$d it @!com!,
!33!cti+! o$l# o$c! it ,ta$d, r!9i,t!r!d % Cictio$ cr!at!d @# S!ctio$ 67 do!, $ot com! i$to
.la# @!3or! th! actal r!9i,tratio$ o3 th! docm!$t ta/!, .lac!(
R!,.o$d!$t No,( 2 to ; cold $ot @! h!ld to @! @o$a 3id! .rcha,!r, 3or +al! .aid
i$ 9ood 3aith *ithot $otic! o3 th! ori9i$al co$tract a$d th! ,al! i$ th!ir 3a+or *a, ,@A!ct
to th! doctri$! o3 li, .!$d!$,(
:!ldF
3ection '# of the Act, $992, mandatorily re0uires that the sale of any immovable
property of the value of hundred rupees and upward can be made only by a registered instrument.
3ection #: of the Act, $%;9, provides that registration of the document shall relate back to the
date of the execution of the document. Thus, the aforesaid two provisions make it crystal clear
that sale deed in 0uestion re0uires registration. ,ven if registration had been done subse0uent to
the filing of 3uit, it related back to the date of execution of the sale deed, which was prior to
institution of the suit.
owever, all these cases are related to right to preemption though the legal issue involved
therein remained the same. +n view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that in spite of
the fact that the registration of the sale deed would relate back to the date of execution, the sale
can not be termed as complete until its registration and it becomes effective only once it stands
registered. Thus, the fiction created by 3ection #: of the Act, $%;9, does not come into play
before the actual registration of the document takes place.
2011-1( L(W( 61;
RamAa, Co$datio$ a$d a$oth!r
+,
'$io$ o3 I$dia a$d oth!r,
La$d AcEi,itio$ Act 11&465, S!ctio$ 6, ;, Wa/3 Act8-!dicatio$ @# a $o$-m,lim,
E33!ct o3(
Co$crr!$t 3i$di$9 that *hat *a, cr!at!d *a, a P@lic Charita@l! Tr,t a$d $ot a
Wa/3 a$d th! .ro.!rt# acEir!d +id! $oti3icatio$ *a, $ot a Wa/3 .ro.!rt# do!, $ot call 3or
i$t!r3!r!$c!(
Wa/3 o*!, it, ori9i$ to a rl! laid do*$ @# th! .ro.h!t o3 I,lam(
It m!a$, <th! t#i$9 . o3 .ro.!rt# i$ th! o*$!r,hi. o3 0od th! Almi9ht# a$d th!
d!+otio$ o3 th! .ro3it, 3or th! @!$!3it o3 hma$ @!i$9, % -i+i$! a..ro@atio$ @!i$9 th!
!,,!$tial i$ co$,tittio$ o3 a Wal3 i3 th! o@A!ct 3or *hich a d!dicatio$ i, mad! i, ,i$3l,
!ith!r accordi$9 to th! la*, o3 I,lam or to th! cr!!d o3 th! d!dicator it *old $ot @! +alid(
A $o$ M,lim ca$ al,o cr!at! a Wa/3 3or a$# .r.o,! *hich i, r!li9io, $d!r th!
Mohamm!da$ La*(
Pri$ci.l! that a .!r,o$ *ho do!, $ot com! to th! Cort *ith cl!a$ ha$d, i, $ot
!$titl!d to @! h!ard o$ th! m!rit, o3 hi, 9ri!+a$c! a$d ,ch .!r,o$ i, $ot !$titl!d to a$#
&
r!li!3 i, a..lica@l! $ot o$l# to th! .!titio$, 3il!d $d!r Articl!, 32, 22; a$d 13; o3 th!
Co$,tittio$ @t al,o to th! ca,!, i$,titt!d i$ oth!r cort, a$d Adicial 3orm,(
Wa/3 Act8-!dicatio$ @# a $o$-m,lim, E33!ct o3 % S!! La$d AcEi,itio$ Act 11&465,
S!ctio$ 6, ;(
120115 1 S.r!m! Cort Ca,!, 6;;
MOTI RAM 7-,A-8 T"4<= >"3 AN- ANOT:ER
+,
AS:O) )'MAR AN- ANOT:ER
Ci+il Proc!dr! Cod!, 140& % S( &41151d5 a$d Or( 10 R( 1-C % R!.ort!d o3 m!diator
$d!r- Pro.!r r!.ort % What i,, ,tat!d % N!!d 3or co$3id!$tialit#, .oi$t!d ot % I$ ca,! o3
3ailr! o3 m!diatio$, r!.ort, h!ld, ,hold o$l# ,tat! that m!diatio$ *a, $,cc!,,3l %
-i,c,,io$ a$d .ro.o,al, ,hold $ot @! di,clo,!d % L!9al Aid a$d A-R % M!diatio$(
Ci+il Proc!dr! Cod!, 140& % S( &41151d5 a$d Or( 10 Rr( 1A to 1-C % M!diatio$ %
Natr! o3 m!diatio$ .roc!!di$9,, ,tat!d % L!9al Aid a$d A-R % M!diatio$(
Ci+il Proc!dr! Cod!, 140& % S( &41151d5 a$d Or( 10 R( 1-C % '$,cc!,,3l
m!diatio$ % Co$tractal ri9ht, a$d o@li9atio$, $d!r % :!ld, a$ $,cc!,,3l m!diatio$
*old $ot amo$t to a co$cld!d co$tract - Co$tract Act, 1&72 % S,( 6 to 7, 10 a$d 21!5, 1a5
a$d 1@5 % Co$tract a$d S.!ci3ic R!li!3 % Cormatio$ o3 co$tract % O33!r a$d acc!.ta$c! %
'$,cc!,,3l m!diatio$(
JJJJJJ
:
S'PREME CO'RT CITATIONS
CRIMINAL CASE
120115 2 S.r!m! Cort Ca,!, 3;
:IMANS:' ALIAS C:INT'
+,
STATE 1NCT OC -EL:I5
Crimi$al Trial % Wit$!,,!, % :o,til! *it$!,, % E+id!$c! o3 % Admi,,i@ilit# % EDt!$t
o3 % Corro@oratio$ @# ,om! oth!r r!lia@l! !+id!$c! % N!!d o3 % :!ld, !+id!$c! o3 ho,til!
*it$!,, r!mai$, admi,,i@l! !+id!$c! a$d it i, o.!$ to cort to r!l# .o$ d!.!$da@l! .art o3
th! !+id!$c!, *hich i, 3o$d to @! acc!.ta@l! a$d dl# corro@orat!d @# ,om! oth!r r!lia@l!
!+id!$c! a+aila@l! o$ r!cord % :!r!i$, cort, @!lo* did $ot !rr i$ acti$9 o$ !+id!$c! o3 PW
11 1!#!*it$!,, a$d @roth!r o3 +ictim, *ho tr$!d ho,til!5, *hich *a, dl# corro@orat!d @#
oth!r r!lia@l! !+id!$c! o$ r!cord % E+id!$c! Act, 1&72 % S( 126 % Crimi$al Trial - Wit$!,,!,
% R!lat!d *it$!,, % Tr$i$9 ho,til! % I$,ta$c! o3(
P!$al Cod!, 1&;0 % S,( 302836 % Mrd!r trial % A..r!ciatio$ o3 !+id!$c! %
Co$+ictio$ co$3irm!d @a,!d .ri$ci.all# o$ t!,timo$# o3 ho,til! !#!*it$!,, corro@orat!d @#
oth!r r!lia@l! !+id!$c! % A..!lla$t-acc,!d 1A-2 a$d A-35, alo$9 *ith oth!r,, ,hot d!c!a,!d
d!ad, o$ acco$t o3 ,om! .r!+io, !$mit# % Co$+ictio$ o3 a..!lla$t, $d!r S,( 302836,
.h!ld @# :i9h Cort % S,tai$a@ilit# % :!ld, .r!,!$c! o3 PW, 7, & a$d 11 1!#!*it$!,,!,5 at
th! tim! a$d .lac! o3 occrr!$c!, $ot do@t3l % E+id!$c! o3 PW 11 1E#!*it$!,, a$d
@roth!r o3 d!c!a,!d5 cl!arl# $ail, a..!lla$t, 3or mrd!r o3 d!c!a,!d % :! i, a trth3l
*it$!,, *ho ca$ @! ,a3!l# r!li!d .o$, tho9h h! had tr$!d ho,til! % :i, !+id!$c! i,
corro@orat!d, i$,o3ar a, A-2 i, co$c!r$!d, @# PW, 7 a$d & % :i, !+id!$c! al,o 9!t,
corro@orat!d 3rom !+id!$c! o3 PW, 2 a$d 26 1doctor co$dcti$9 .o,t-mort!m o3 d!c!a,!d
a$d SI, r!,.!cti+!l#5 % Com.licit# o3 A-3 i, al,o !,ta@li,h!d @# !+id!$c! o3 PW 11, *hich i,
dl# corro@orat!d @# m!dical a$d oth!r !+id!$c!, altho9h PW, 7 a$d & ha+! $ot
,.!ci3icall# $am!d him % Co$crr!$t 3i$di$9 o3 cort, @!lo*, that .ro,!ctio$ !+id!$c! i,
,33ici!$t to !,ta@li,h 9ilt o3 A-3 a, *!ll, @!#o$d a$# r!a,o$a@l! do@t, r!lia@l! % Cact that
PW 11?, ,tat!m!$t *a, ta/!$ do*$ @# PW 26 1SI5 at th! .lac! o3 occrr!$c! *ithi$ 20-22
mi$t!, o3 i$cid!$t, cl!arl# !,ta@li,h!d % Altho9h d!3!$c! .oi$t!d ot c!rtai$
di,cr!.a$ci!, a$d omi,,io$, i$ PW 11?, d!.o,itio$, @t, ,ch di,cr!.a$ci!, a$d omi,,io$,
ar! o$l# mi$or a$d $ot +!r# mat!rial a$d do $ot ,ha/! hi, tr,t*orthi$!,, % Co$cl,io$,
r!cord!d @# trial cort a$d co$3irm!d @# :i9h Cort, co$c!r$i$9 a..!lla$t,, do $ot ,33!r
3rom a$# 3actal or l!9al !rror % :!$c!, co$+ictio$ o3 a..!lla$t,, co$3irm!d % Crimi$al
Trial % A..r!ciatio$ o3 !+id!$c! % Mi$or co$tradictio$, or i$co$,i,t!$ci!, immat!rial(
Crimi$al Proc!dr! Cod!, 1473 % S( 126 % CIR % -!la# i$ lod9i$983ili$9 CIR %
S33ici!$tl# !D.lai$!d % E33!ct, i3 a$# % :!ld, o$ 3act,, d!la# o3 t*o hor, i$ 3ili$9 CIR,
,tood ,33ici!$tl# !D.lai$!d % Th!r!3or!, d!3!$c! ,@mi,,io$ that tim! o3 t*o hor, *a,
,!d to 3al,!l# im.licat! acc,!d d! to .r!+io, !$mit#, r!A!ct!d(
9
2011-1(L(W(1Crl(5 3&
Chirra Shi+raA
+,
Stat! o3 A$dhra Prad!,h
I(P(C(, S!ctio$ 3068Part II, Crimi$al Trial8C(I(R(, S!co$d C(I(R(, Pl!a a, to l!9alit#,
-#i$9 -!claratio$, Crimi$al P(C(, S!ctio$, 12&,1;2, 173(
-#i$9 d!claratio$ *hich i, tr,t*orth# a$d *hich ca$ @! ,ho*$ that th! .!r,o$
ma/i$9 th! ,tat!m!$t *a, $ot i$3l!$c!d @# a$# !Dt!rior 3actor a$d mad! th! ,tat!m!$t
*hich *a, dl# r!cord!d ca$ @! mad! @a,i, 3or co$+ictio$ % I$ th! i$,ta$t ca,! th!r! *a,
$o do@t *ith r!9ard to th! trth3l$!,, o3 th! d#i$9 d!claratio$ % It ca$$ot @! th!r!3or!
,aid that o$ th! ,ol! @a,i, o3 d#i$9 d!claratio$ th! ord!r o3 co$+ictio$ cold $ot ha+! @!!$
.a,,!d(
Cir,t I$3ormatio$ R!.ort 1CIR5 i, a r!.ort *hich 9i+!, 3ir,t i$3ormatio$ *ith r!9ard
to a$# o33!$c! % Th!r! ca$$ot @! ,!co$d CIR i$ r!,.!ct o3 th! ,am! o33!$c!8!+!$t @!ca,!
*h!$!+!r a$# 3rth!r i$3ormatio$ i, r!c!i+!d @# th! i$+!,ti9ati$9 a9!$c#, it i, al*a#, i$
3rth!ra$c! o3 th! Cir,t I$3ormatio$ R!.ort(
I$ thi, ca,!, @# +irt! o3 th! ,!co$d CIR, 3rth!r d!+!lo.m!$t *hich had ta/!$
.lac! had @!!$ r!cord!d % Th! ,aid d!+!lo.m!$t *a, *ith r!9ard to th! d!ath o3 th!
d!c!a,!d a$d, th!r!3or!, a$ o33!$c! $d!r th! .ro+i,io$, o3 S!ctio$ 302 o3 th! IPC ha, @!!$
r!9i,t!r!d(
CIR No(6;844 *a, r!cord!d o$ th! @a,i, o3 th! ,tat!m!$t mad! @# th! d!c!a,!d
*h!$ th! d!c!a,!d *a, ali+! a$d .o$ h!r d!ath, *hich had $!D, *ith th! i$Ari!, %
Crth!r i$3ormatio$ *a, 9i+!$ o$ 2
$d
A9,t, 1444, a$d that *a, r!cord!d a, CIR
No(122844- It *a, $ot $!c!,,ar# to r!cord a$oth!r CIR a, th! d!ath *a, r!,lt o3 ,!.tic!mia
*hich *a, d! to th! @r$ i$Ari!, % I$ 3act th! ,!co$d CIR *a, $othi$9 @t a co$,!E!$c!
o3 th! !+!$t *hich had ta/!$ .lac! o$ 21
,t
A.ril, 1444 % I$ th! circm,ta$c!,, th! co$t!$t,
o3 th! ,o call!d ,!co$d CIR @!i$9 CIR No(122844, cold ha+! @!!$ i$cor.orat!d i$ th! .olic!
diar# a, a r!,lt o3 3rth!r i$3ormatio$ or !+!$t *hich had @!!$ ta/!$ .lac! % A, a matt!r
o3 3act, it *a, $ot $!c!,,ar# to $ot! th! ,am! a, a $!* CIR @t ,im.l# @!ca,! th! S(:(O
mad! a mi,ta/! @# r!cordi$9 it a, a 3r!,h CIR, it *old $ot ma/! th! ca,! o3 th!
.ro,!ctio$ *!a/ !,.!ciall# *h!$ $o .r!Adic! had @!!$ ca,!d to th! a..!lla$t or a$#
oth!r .!r,o$ @!ca,! o3 th! a3or!,tat!d 3rth!r i$3ormatio$ *ith r!9ard to th! d!ath @!i$9
r!cord!d a, a $!* CIR % It ca$$ot @! ,aid that m!r!l# @!ca,! ,!co$d CIR *a, 3il!d, th!
!$tir! i$+!,ti9atio$ *a, d!3!cti+! a$d that ,hold r!,lt i$to acEittal o3 th! acc,!d %
A..!al di,mi,,!d(
2011-1(L(W(1Crl(5 63
Tha$ Ram
+,
Stat! o3 M(P(
I(P(C(, S!ctio$ 64&-A, 30;, 1078Sicid! @# *i3!8A@!tm!$t, E+id!$c! Act 11&725,
S!ctio$ 113-A8Pr!,m.tio$, Sco.!, Crimi$al Trial8-#i$9 d!claratio$(
%
I$ thi, ca,!, th!r! i, $o 9!tti$9 a*a# 3rom th! 3act that :ira@ai committ!d ,icid! i$
th! 6
th
#!ar o3 h!r marria9! *h!$ ,h! *a, ,iD mo$th,? .r!9$a$t % Ordi$aril#, a *oma$ i$
a$ ad+a$c!d ,ta9! o3 .r!9$a$c# *old $ot commit ,icid! !+!$ *h!$ tr!at!d *ith cr!lt# %
It i, o$l# i$ !Dtr!m! circm,ta$c!, that a *oma$ ma# d!cid! to ta/! h!r li3! a$d that o3 h!r
$@or$ child *h!$ ,h! r!ach!, a .oi$t o3 $o r!tr$ a$d i, i$ a m!$tal ,tat! to ta/! h!r o*$
li3! % Th!r! i, o am@i9it# or irr!9larit# a, 3ar a, th! d#i$9 d!claratio$ i, co$c!r$!d a$d it
ha, @!!$ ,tat!d i$ cl!ar a$d ,im.l! la$9a9! that th! +ictim had @!!$ tr!at!d *ith @oth
m!$tal a$d .h#,ical cr!lt# a$d th! +ictim ha, ,tat!d Eit! ca$didl# ho* ,h! .or!d
/!ro,!$! o$ h!r @od# a$d ,!t h!r,!l3 o$ 3ir!(
El!m!$t o3 i$,ti9atio$ a, $d!r,tood *ithi$ th! m!a$i$9 o3 S!ctio$ 107 IPC i, dl#
,ati,3i!d i$ thi, ca,! i$ +i!* o3 th! .ro+i,io$, o3 S!ctio$ 113-A o3 th! I$dia$ E+id!$c! Act,
1&72, *hich .ro+id!, 3or a .r!,m.tio$ to @! arri+!d at r!9ardi$9 a@!tm!$t o3 ,icid! @# a
marri!d *oma$ a$d c!rtai$ crit!ria ar! al,o laid do*$ th!r!i$ % I3 th! d!9r!! o3 cr!lt# i,
,ch a, to *arra$t a co$+ictio$ $d!r S!ctio$ 64&-A IPC, th! ,am! ma# @! ,33ici!$t 3or a
.r!,m.tio$ to @! dra*$ $d!r S!ctio$ 113-A o3 th! E+id!$c! Act i$ harmo$# *ith th!
.ro+i,io$, o3 S!ctio$ 107 IPC(
E+id!$c! Act 11&725, S!ctio$ 113-A8Pr!,m.tio$, Sco.! % S!! I(P(C(, S!ctio$ 64&-A,
30;, 1078Siicid! @# *i3!8A@!tm!$t(
Crimi$al Trial8-#i$9 d!claratio$ % S!! I(P(C(, S!ctio$ 64&-A, 30;, 1078Sicid! @#
*i3!8A@!tm!$t, E+id!$c! Act 11&725, S!ctio$ 113-A8Pr!,m.tio$, Sco.!(
3ection $;: +/C clearly defines abetment to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing
who instigates a person to do that thing. The 0uestion with which we are confronted is whether
there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that by any of the acts of cruelty attributed to the
/etitioner there was an intention to instigate irabai into committing suicide. There is no getting
away from the fact that irabai committed suicide in the #
th
year of her marriage when she was
six months! pregnant. 4rdinarily, a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy would not
commit suicide even when treated with cruelty. +t is only in extreme circumstances that a woman
may decide to take her life and that of her unborn child when she reaches a point of no return and
is in a mental state to take her own life.
2011-1(L(W(1Crl(5 ;6
ViAa#,i$h Cha$d@ha "ad!Aa
+,
Stat! o3 0Aarat
Narcotic -r9, a$d P,#chotro.ic S@,ta$c!, Act 114&25, S!ctio$ 208=S@,ta$tial
com.lia$c!= *ith S!ctio$K S!ctio$ *h!th!r ca,t, a dt# o$ th! !m.o*!r!d o33ic!r to
>i$3orm? th! ,,.!ct o3 hi, ri9ht to @! ,!arch!d i$ th! .r!,!$c! o3 a 0aI!tt!d O33ic!r or a
Ma9i,trat!, i3 h! ,o d!,ir!,(
L!,tio$ rai,!d *h!th!r a m!r! !$Eir# @# th! ,aid o33ic!r a, to *h!th!r th!
,,.!ct *old li/! to @! ,!arch!d i$ th! .r!,!$c! o3 a Ma9i,trat! or a 0aI!tt!d O33ic!r ca$
@! ,aid to @! d! com.lia$c! *ith th! ma$dat! o3 th! ,aid S!ctio$M -i+!r9!$c! o3 o.i$io$
@!t*!!$ th! d!ci,io$, % R!3!r!$c! a$,*!r!d @# Ci+! "d9!, H!$ch(
$;
:!ldF
Co$c!.t o3 >,@,ta$tial com.lia$c!? @!i$9 r!ad i$to S!ctio$ 20 o3 th! N-PS Act,
*h!th!r la#, do*$ th! corr!ct .ro.o,itio$ o3 la*(
:!ldF
Th! co$c!.t o3 <,@,ta$tial com.lia$c!= *ith th! r!Eir!m!$t o3 S!ctio$ 20 o3 th!
N-PS Act i$trodc!d a$d r!ad i$to th! ma$dat! o3 th! ,aid S!ctio$ i$ "o,!.h C!r$a$d!I
ca,! a$d Phabha Shankar Dubey ca,! i, $!ith!r @or$! ot 3rom th! la$9a9! o3 ,@-,!ctio$
15 o3 S!ctio$ 20 $or it i, i$ co$,o$a$c! *ith th! dictm laid do*$ i$ Baldev Singhs case ca,!
%L!,tio$ *h!th!r or $ot th! .roc!dr! .r!,cri@!d ha, @!!$ 3ollo*!d a$d th! r!Eir!m!$t
o3 S!ctio$ 20 had @!!$ m!t, i, a matt!r o3 trial % It *old $!ith!r @! .o,,i@l! $or 3!a,i@l! to
la# do*$ a$# a@,olt! 3ormla i$ that @!hal3 % I$ ord!r to im.art ath!$ticit#,
tra$,.ar!$c# a$d cr!dit*orthi$!,, to th! !$tir! .roc!!di$9,, i$ th! 3ir,t i$,ta$c!, a$
!$d!a+or ,hold @! to .rodc! th! ,,.!ct @!3or! th! $!ar!,t Ma9i,trat!, *ho !$Ao#,
mor! co$3id!$c! o3 th! commo$ ma$ com.ar!d to a$# oth!r o33ic!r % It *old $ot o$l# add
l!9itimac# to th! ,!arch .roc!!di$9,, it ma# +!ril# ,tr!$9th!$ th! .ro,!ctio$ a, *!ll(
The (-/3 Act was enacted in the year $%9', with a view to consolidate and amend the
law relating to narcotic drugs, incorporating stringent provisions for control and regulation of
operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The ob1ect of the said
legislation has been explained time and again by this Court in a plethora of cases and, therefore,
we feel that it is not necessary to delve upon this aspect all over again, except to re.emphasise
that in order to prevent abuse of the provisions of the (-/3 Act, which confer wide powers on
the empowered officers, the safeguards provided by the >egislature have to be observed strictly.
2011 115 SCALE 126
S'REN-ERA MIS:RA
+,
STATE OC ":AR):AN-
CRIMINAL LAW % I(P(C( % SECTION &6 G 302 % '$,o$d$!,, o3 mi$d % Hrd!$
o3 .roo3 % A..!lla$t tho9h ,33!ri$9 3rom c!rtai$ m!$tal i$,ta@ilit# !+!$ @!3or! a$d a3t!r
th! i$cid!$t, 3rom that o$! ca$$ot i$3!r o$ a @ala$c! o3 .r!.o$d!ra$c! o3 .ro@a@iliti!, that
th! a..!lla$t at th! tim! o3 commi,,io$ o3 th! o33!$c! did $ot /$o* th! $atr! o3 hi, act %
Acc,!d *ho ,!!/, !Do$!ratio$ 3rom lia@ilit# o3 a$ act 8, &6, IPC i, to .ro+! l!9al i$,a$it#
a$d $ot m!dical i$,a$it# % Pro,!ctio$ ca,! that d!c!a,!d *a, 9oi$9 i$ a car dri+!$ @#
PW(1 a$d *h!$ h! a,/!d th! dri+!r to ,to. th! car a$d call PW(2, o*$!r o3 ato .art, ,ho.
% All!9atio$, that all o3 a ,dd!$ th! a..!lla$t, o*$!r o3 a $!ar@# M!dical :all cam! th!r!
*ith a co$tr# mad! .i,tol, .,h!d PW(2 a,id! a$d 3ir!d at .oi$t @la$/ ra$9! at th!
d!c!a,!d % -ri+!r 3l!d a*a# 3rom th! .lac! o3 occrr!$c! a$d i$3orm!d 3amil# m!m@!r, o3
th! d!c!a,!d, l!a+i$9 th! d!c!a,!d i$ th! car it,!l3 % Imm!diat!l# a3t!r th! a..!lla$t had
,hot d!ad th! d!c!a,!d, thr!at!$!d hi, dri+!r PW(1 o3 dir! co$,!E!$c!, - :! ra$ a*a#
3rom th! .lac! o3 occrr!$c! a$d thr!* th! co$tr# mad! .i,tol, *!a.o$ o3 crim!, i$ th!
*!ll i$ ord!r to co$c!al him,!l3 3rom th! crim! % :o*!+!r, it *a, r!co+!r!d lat!r o$ %
A..!lla$t *a, .,#chiatric *ith .ara$oid 3!atr!, % O$l# m!dici$! *a, ad+i,!d 3or ,l!!. %
Wh!th!r a..!lla$t *a, !$titl!d to th! @!$!3it o3 S!ctio$ &6, IPC % -i,mi,,i$9 th! a..!al,
:!ld,
$$
?rom a plain reading of the aforesaid provision it is evident that an act will not be an
offence, if done by a person who, at the time of doing the same by reason of unsoundness of
mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is either wrong or
contrary to law. @ut what is unsoundness of mindA
An accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under 3ection 9# of the +ndian
/enal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. ,xpression )<nsoundness of
mind* has not been defined in the +ndian /enal Code and it has mainly been treated as e0uivalent
to insanity. @ut the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes
varying degrees of mental disorder. ,very person who is suffering from mental disease is not
ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. The mere fact that the accused is conceited, odd,
irascible and his brain is not 0uite all right, or that the physical and mental aliments from which
he suffered had rendered his intellect weak and affected his emotions or indulges in certain
unusual acts, or had fits of insanity at short intervals or that he was sub1ect to epileptic fits and
there was abnormal behaviour or the behaviour is 0ueer are not sufficient to attract the
application of 3ection 9# of the +ndian /enal Code.
+n law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the
natural conse0uences of his act. The burden of proof in the face of 3ection $;' of the ,vidence
Act is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not re0uired to prove the
same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. The
onus has to be discharged by producing evidence as to the conduct of the accused prior to the
offence, his conduct at the time or immediately after the offence with reference to his
medicalcondition by production of medical evidence and other relevant factors. ,ven if the
accused establishes unsoundness of mind, 3ection 9# of the +ndian /enal Code will not come to
its rescue, in case it is found that the accused knew that what he was doing was wrong or that it
was contrary to law. +n order to ascertain that, it is imperative to take into consideration the
circumstances and the behaviour preceding, attending and following the crime. @ehaviour of an
accused pertaining to a desire for concealment of the weapon of offence and conduct to avoid
detection of crime go a long way to ascertain as to whether, he knew the conse0uences of the act
done by him.
The first evidence in regard to the unsoundness of mind as brought by the appellant is the
medical prescription dated $9
th
4ctober, $%9: 7,xt. A.$8 in which symptom of the appellant has
been noted as psychiatric with paranoid features and medicine was advised for sleep. 4ther
prescriptions are dated %
th
Banuary, $%99 7,xt. A8 and '
th
of 3eptember $%%9 in which only
medicines have been prescribed. 4ther prescriptions 7,xts. A.' to A.:8 also do not spell out the
disease the appellant was suffering but give the names of the medicines, he was advised to take.
The occurrence had taken place on $$
th
of August 2;;;. ?rom these prescriptions, the only
inference one can draw is that the appellant had paranoid feeling but that too was not proximate
to the date of occurrence. +t has to be borne in mind that to establish that acts done are not
offence and come within general exception it is re0uired to be proved that at the time of
commission of the act, accused by reason of unsoundness of mind was incapable of knowing that
his acts were wrong or contrary to law. +n the present case the prosecution has proved beyond all
reasonable doubt that immediately after the appellant had shot.dead the deceased, threatened his
driver /6.$, Cidyut Dumar Eodi of dire conse0uences. (ot only that, he ran away from the
place of occurrence and threw the country.made pistol, the weapon of crime, in the well in order
to conceal himself from the crime. owever, it was recovered later on. The aforesaid conduct of
the appellant subse0uent to the commission of the offence clearly goes to suggest that he knew
that whatever he had done was wrong and illegal. ?urther, he was running a medical shop and
came to the place of occurrence and shot dead the deceased. ad the appellant been a person of
$2
unsound mind, it may not have been possible for him to run a medical shop. 6e are of the
opinion that the appellant though suffered from certain mental instability even before and after
the incident but from that one cannot infer on a balance of preponderance of probabilities that the
appellant at the time of the commission of the offence did not know the nature of his act; that it
was either wrong or contrary to law. +n our opinion, the plea of the appellant does not come
within the exception contemplated under 3ection 9# of the +ndian /enal Code.
2011 115 SCALE 163
-ABA NAN-
+,
STATE OC :ARBANA
"'VENILES % "'VENILE "'STICE ACT, 14&; % SECTION 21h5 % A+!$il! A,tic!
1CARE AN- PROTECTION OC C:IL-REN5 ACT, 2000 % SECTION 21/5, 20 G ;4 %
I(P(C % SECTION 37; r8* 211 % Pl!a o3 A+!$ilit# % O$ dat! o3 occrr!$c!, a9! o3 a..!lla$t
*a, 1; #!ar, 2 mo$th, a$d 14 da#, % A..!lla$t ca$$ot @! /!.t i$ .ri,o$ to $d!r9o th!
,!$t!$c! im.o,!d @# th! S!ctio$, "d9! a, a33irm!d @# th! :i9h Cort % A..!lla$t *a,
co$+ict!d 8, 37; r8* 211, IPC a$d ,!$t!$c!d to ri9oro, im.ri,o$m!$t 3or 3i+! #!ar, % Pl!a
o3 A+!$ilit# *a, rai,!d at a$ !arl# ,ta9! o3 .roc!!di$9, % "+!$il! ",tic! Cort o@,!r+i$9
that th! dat! o3 @irth o3 a..!lla$t *a, 16(&(14&1 a$d r!c/o$!d o$ that @a,i,, h! *a, $ot a
A+!$il! o$ 2(2(144&, th! dat! o3 th! occrr!$c! % Pl!a o3 A+!$ilit# *a, a9ai$ rai,!d i$
a..!al, @t th! :i9h Cort r!A!ct!d it % O$ 2(2(144&, a9! o3 a..!lla$t o3 a..!lla$t *a, 1;
#!ar,, 2 mo$th, a$d 14 da#, % Wh!th!r a..!lla$t *old @! tr!at!d a, A+!$il! % Allo*i$9
th! a..!al, :!ld,
+n the Buvenile Bustice Act, $%9&, a F1uvenile! was defined under 3ection 27h8 to mean a
boy who has not attained the age of $& years or a girl who has not attained the age of $9 years.
4n the basis of the finding of the 3ections Budge that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was
over $&years or a girl who has not attained the age of $9 years. 4n the basis of the finding of the
3ections Budge that on the date of occurrence, the appellant was over $& years of age, he did not
come within the definition of F1uvenile! under the $%9& Act.
The Buvenile Bustice Act, $%9& was replaced by the Buvenile Bustice 7Care and /rotection
of Children8 Act, 2;;; that came into force on April $, 2;;$. The 2;;; Act defined F1uvenile or
child! in section 27k8 to mean a person who has not completed eighteenth years of age. 3ection
&% of the 2;;; Act, repealed the Buvenile Bustice Act, $%9&. The 2;;; Act, in section 2; also
contained a provision in regard to cases that were pending when it came into force and in which
the accused at the time of commission of offence was below $9 years of age but above sixteen
years of age 7and hence, not a 1uvenile under the $%9& Act8 and conse0uently who was being
tried not before a 1uvenile court but a regular court.
The above 0uoted provision came up for consideration before a Constitution @ench of
this Court in /ratap 3ingh vs. 3tate of Bharkhand and Anr., 72;;'8/ 2 3CC ''$. +n /ratap 3ingh,
this Court held that section 2; of the 2;;; Act would apply only to cases in which the accused
was below $9 years of age on April $, 2;;$, the date on which the 2;;; Act came into force but
it would have no application in case the accused had crossed the age of $9 years on the date of
coming into force of the 2;;; Act.
Applying the ratio of the Constitution @ench decision, the appellant would not be entitled
to the protections and benefits of the provisions of the 2;;; Act, since he was over $9 years of
age on April $, 2;;$, when the 2;;; Act came into force. @ut the matter did not stop at that
$2
stage. After this Court!s decision in /ratap 3ingh 7and presumably as a result of that decision8 a
number of amendments of a very basic nature were introduced in the 2;;; Act w.e.f. August 22,
2;;& by Act 22 of 2;;&.
The effect of the amendments in the 2;;; Act were considered by this Court in ari "am
v. 3tate of "a1asthan and Another reported in 72;;%8 $2 3CC 2$$. +n ari "am this Court held
that the Constitution @ench decision in /ratap 3ingh!s case was no longer relevant since it was
rendered under the unamended Act.
>ater on, the decision in ari "am 7supra8 was followed by this Court in -harambir v.
3tate 7(CT of -elhi8 and Another, 72;$;8 ' 3CC 2## and also in Eohan Eali G Another v. 3tate
of E./., A+" 2;$; 3C $:%;.
+n view of the Buvenile Bustice Act as it stands after the amendments introduced into it
and following the decision in ari "am and the later decisions the appellant can not be kept in
prison to undergo the sentence imposed by the Additional 3essions Budge and affirmed by the
igh Court. The sentence imposed against the appellant is set aside and he is directed to be
released from prison. e is further directed to be produced before the Buvenile Bustice @oard,
(arnaul, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with the provisions of the Buvenile Bustice
Act.
120115 1 S.r!m! Cort Ca,!, ;46
SI--:ARAM SATLIN0APPA M:ETRE
+,
STATE OC MA:ARAS:TRA AN- OT:ERS
Co$,tittio$ o3 I$dia % Art,( 21, 22 a$d 14 % A$tici.ator# @ail % Rol! o3, i$
.rot!ctio$ o3 ri9ht to .!r,o$al li@!rt# % S!$,! i$ *hich S( 63& CrPC i, d!,cri@!d a, @!i$9
<EDtraordi$ar#=, clari3i!d % :!ld, S( 63& CrPC i, $ot !Dtraordi$ar# i$ th! ,!$,! that it
,hold @! i$+o/!d o$l# i$ !Dc!.tio$al or rar! ca,!, % A 9r!at i9$omi$#, hmiliatio$ a$d
di,9rac! i, attach!d to arr!,t % I$ ca,!, *h!r! cort i, o3 co$,id!r!d +i!* that acc,!d ha,
Aoi$!d i$+!,ti9atio$ a$d h! i, 3ll# coo.!rati$9 *ith th! i$+!,ti9ati$9 a9!$c# a$d i, $ot
li/!l# to a@,co$d, i$ that !+!$t c,todial i$t!rro9atio$ ,hold @! a+oid!d, a$d a$tici.ator#
@ail ,hold @! 9ra$t!d, *hich a3t!r h!ari$9 P@lic Pro,!ctor, ,hold ordi$aril# @!
co$ti$!d till !$d o3 trial % Crimi$al Proc!dr! Cod!, 1473, S( 63&(
Co$,tittio$ o3 I$dia % Art,( 21 a$d 22 % Hail % Rol! o3, i$ .rot!ctio$ o3 ri9ht to
.!r,o$al li@!rt# % E,,!$c! o3 3$ctio$ i$+ol+!d i$ 9ra$t o3 @ail, a$d m!a,r!, to !$,r!
.ro.!r .!r3orma$c! th!r!o3 % :!ld, !D!rci,! o3 ,aid Ari,dictio$ r!Eir!, mai$tai$i$9 o3
.!r3!ct @ala$c! @!t*!!$ t*o co$3licti$9 i$t!r!,t, +iI(, ,a$ctit# o3 i$di+idal li@!rt# a$d
i$t!r!,t o3 ,oci!t# % :!$c!, it ,hold @! !$tr,t!d to Adicial o33ic!r, *ith ,om! !D.!ri!$c!
a$d 9ood trac/ r!cord % :i9h Cort, ad+i,!d to .!riodicall# or9a$i,! 1thro9h th!ir
"dicial Acad!mi!,5 *or/,ho.,, ,#m.o,im,, ,!mi$ar, a$d l!ctr!, 3or ori!$tatio$ o3
Adicial o33ic!r, a$d .olic! o33ic!r, i$ r!,.!ct o3 im.orta$c! o3, a$d m!thod o3 @ala$ci$9 o3,
,aid co$3licti$9 i$t!r!,t, % -ir!ctio$ 9i+!$ 3or .!riodical !+alatio$ o3 .!r3orma$c! o3
Adicial o33ic!r, co$c!r$!d o$ th! @a,i, o3 ca,!, d!cid!d @# th!m - Crimi$al Proc!dr!
Cod! , 1473 % S,( 63&, 637 a$d 634 % Crimi$al Trial % Hail % 0!$!rall#(
$#
:!ldF
Bust as liberty is precious to an individual, so is the society!s interest in maintenance of
place, law and order. @oth are e0ually important.
A large number of undertrials are languishing in 1ail for a long time even for allegedly
committing very minor offences. This is because 3ection #29 Cr/C has not been allowed its full
play. The Constitution @ench is 3ibbia case, 7$%9;8 2 3CC '&' clearly mentioned that 3ection
#29 Cr/C is extraordinary because it was incorporated in Cr/C, $%:2 and before that other
provisions for grant of bail were 3ections #2: and #2% Cr/C. +t is not extraordinary in the sense
that it should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases. 3ome courts of smaller strength have
erroneously observed that 3ection #29 Cr/C should be invoked only in exceptional or rare cases.
According to the "eport of the (ational /olice Commission, when the power of arrest is
grossly abused and clearly violates the personal liberty of the people, as enshrined under Article
2$ of the Constitution, then the courts need to take serious notice of it. 6hen conviction rate is
admittedly less than $;H, then the police should be slow in arresting the accused. The courts
considering the bail application should try to maintain fine balance between the societal interest
vis.I.vis personal liberty while adhering to the fundamental principle of criminal 1urisprudence
that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is found guilty by the competent court.
JJJJJ
$'
:I0: CO'RT CITATIONS
CIVIL CASE
2011 115 TLN" 1 1Ci+il5
M8,( A$9lo Cr!$ch T!Dtil!, 1A '$it o3 Pdch!ri T!Dtil!, Cor.oratio$5
+,
M8,( Si+aram A9!$ci!, R!.( H# .art$!r Mr( Sri/a$ta$ a$d oth!r,
Ar@itratio$ a$d Co$ciliatio$ Act 144;, S!ctio$ & % 1P!titio$ to r!3!r ar@itratio$ %
*h!$ to @! 3il!d5 % Sit 3il!d 3or r!co+!r# o3 d!, % d!3!$da$t 3il!d *ritt!$ ,tat!m!$t a$d
too/ acti+! .art i$ th! .roc!!di$9, % 3il!d .!titio$ A,t .rior to trail to di,mi,, th! ,it $-
d!r ord!r 7 Rl! 11 CPC i$ +i!* o3 th! ar@itratio$ cla,! i$ th! a9r!!m!$t @!t*!!$ th!
.arti!, % trial cort di,mi,,!d th! a..licatio$ % o$ r!+i,io$ @# th! d!3!$da$t th! :i9h
Cort h!ld th!at d!3!$da$t ha+i$9 ta/!$ .art i$ th! .roc!!di$9, $ot !$titl!d to ,!!/ ar@it-
ratio$ at th! tim! o3 trial % 3rth!r r!l#i$9 .o$ 2003125CTC 6311SC5 th! .!titio$ ha, to @!
3il!d @!3or! 3ili$9 th! *ritt!$ ,tat!m!$t i$ th! ,it % CRP di,mi,,!d(
Ci+il Proc!dr! Cod! 140& a, am!$d!d, Ord!r 7, Rl! 11 % ,!! Ar@itratio$ a$d
Co$ciliatio$ Act 144;, S!ctio$ &(
2011 115 TLN" 20 1Ci+il5
N!* Era E$9i$!!ri$9 Com.a$# r!.r!,!$t!d
@# it, .art$!r "(S( -!,ai a$d oth!r,
+,
0h#aI :a,him a$d oth!r,
Tamil Nad Hildi$9, 1L!a,! a$d R!$t Co$trol5 Act 14;0, S!ctio$ 6- P!titio$ 3il!d 3or
3iDatio$ o3 3air r!$t % to !,ta@li,h +al! o3 th! ,it!, a ,al! d!!d !D!ct!d 3i+! #!ar, r!lati$9 to
$!ar@# .ro.!rt# *a, .rodc!d @# th! la$d lord % r!$t co$troll!r acc!.t!d th! +al! a,
@a,!, +al! a$d d!t!rmi$!d a$d a..r!ciat!d +al! % 3i$di$9 co$3irm!d @# a..!llat!
athorit# % o$ r!+i,io$ :i9h Cort !D.r!,,!d that *h!$!+!r th!r! i, $o crr!$t docm!$t
to ,ho* th! mar/!t +al! o3 a$# .ro.!rt# l#i$9 *ith m$ici.al ar!a a$d i3 !arli!r docm!$t
i, a+aila@l! to ,ho* ,ch a +al! addi$9 10N o3 a..r!ciatio$ to ,aid +al! .!r a$$m *ill
@! .ro.!r mod! o3 d!t!rmi$atio$ o3 mar/!t +al! % Ci+il R!+i,io$ P!titio$ Allo*!d i$ .art(
2011-1( L(W( 21
Ara3ath$$i,a
+,
T(I( O!!#a+d!!$ a$d oth!r,
M,lim P!r,o$al La*8C,tod# o3 C!mal! child, 0ardia$,hi., W!l3ar! o3 child(
$&
0ardia$, a$d Ward, Act8Moth!r o3 3!mal! child a3t!r h!r ,!co$d marria9!
*h!th!r !$titl!d to c,tod# o3 child i$ .r!3!r!$c! to th! 3ath!r, Sco.!(
L!,tio$ 3or co$,id!ratio$ i$ th! a..!al i,, *h!th!r th! a..!lla$t8moth!r i, !$titl!d
to ha+! th! c,tod# o3 th! mi$or 3!mal! child a3t!r h!r ,!co$d marria9! % It *a, co$t!$t!d
3or th! a..!lla$t that $d!r th! M,lim P!r,o$al la*, th! moth!r o3 th! 3!mal! child i,
!$titl!d to ha+! th! c,tod# o3 th! mi$or child till ,h! attai$, .@!rt#(
:!ldF
I3 a *oma$ marria9!, a .!r,o$ $ot r!lat!d to th! child *ithi$ a .rohi@it!d d!9r!!
i(!( a ,tra$9!r, it i, a di,Eali3icatio$ $d!r th! Mohamm!da$ La* to ha+! th! c,tod# o3
th! child % Tho9h $d!r th! Mohamm!da$ La* ,h! i, !$titl!d to ha+! th! child till ,h!
attai$, .@!rt#, ,i$c! th! moth!r had marri!d a ,tra$9!r ,!co$dl# ,h! i, $ot !$titl!d to
ha+! th! c,tod# o3 th! child % Mor!o+!r, th! .aramo$t i$t!r!,t a$d th! *!l3ar! o3 th!
child ar! crit!ria to ha+! th! c,tod# o3 th! child(
Cort o@,!r+!d that th! mi$or child a..!ar!d to @! $ormalK @t ,@,!E!$t to th!
,!co$d marria9! *h!$ ,h! *a, .rodc!d @!3or! thi, Cort o$ 0&(11(2010, it i, 3o$d that
,h! *a, .,#cholo9icall# .,!t a$d *a, co$ti$o,l# cr#i$9 % Pr!,!$tl# th! mi$or child i,
*ith th! a..!lla$t8*i3! a$d $d!r ,ch circm,ta$c!,, th! a..!lla$t8*i3! i, dir!ct!d to
ha$d o+!r th! c,tod# o3 th! child 3orth*ith to th! 1
,t
r!,.o$d!$t83ath!r, ho*!+!r, th!
a..!lla$t i, !$titl!d to +i,it th! child dri$9 th! 3ir,t *!!/-!$d o3 !+!r# mo$th % -ir!ctio$,
.a,,!d(
Appeal 7CEA8 is filed by he wife as against the order and decretal order passed by the
learned 3ubordinate Budge, Tiruvrur, in =.6.4./.(o.% of 2;;9, whereby the original petition
filed by the $
st
respondentJhusband, seeking the custody of the minor female child, was allowed.
2011 115 CTC 2;
A$$am RamAi
+,
HaAaA E$!r.ri,!,, r!.( @# it, Pro.ri!tor, Sri Cha$d HaAaA
S.!ci3ic R!li!3 Act, 14;3 167 o3 14;35, S!ctio$ 36 % Tamil Nad Cort C!!, a$d Sit,
Valatio$ Act, 1422 1T(N( Act 16 o3 14225, S!ctio$ 22 % Sit 3or @ar! d!claratio$
mai$tai$a@l! $d!r S!ctio$ 36 o3 S.!ci3ic R!li!3 Act % At tim! o3 .r!,!$tatio$ o3 Sit,
Cort ha, to 9o o$l# @# Plai$t a+!rm!$t, a$d ca$$ot dir!ct Plai$ti33 to ,!!/ 3or
co$,!E!$tial r!li!3 a$d +al! Sit S!ctio$ 221@5 i$,t!ad o3 S!ctio$ 221d5 o3 Cort C!!, Act(
Cact,F
The Court returned the /laint on the ground that the relief for a bare declaration was not
maintainable and that the valuation under 3ection 2'7d8 was not proper.
:!ldF
At the stage of presentation of the /laint, the Court has to go through the averments of
the /laint and to come to a conclusion about the nature of relief sought for by the
$:
/etitionerJ/laintiff. The necessity of asking for further relief than mere declaration of status or
right, can be decided only after issuing summons to -efendants and after going through the
contentions of the -efendants in answer to the claim of the /etitionerJ/laintiff. At the stage of
presentation of the /laint itself, the Court cannot decide the right of the /etitionerJ/laintiff and
direct her to go for further reliefs also along with the declaration of his status or right in the suit
property. 4n the fact of the allegations made in the /laint, it is found to be in order for a 3uit for
the relief of status declaration under 3ection 2# of the 3pecific "elief Act. Therefore, it has to
entertain the 3uit and to value the 3uit only under 3ection 2'7d8 of the Tamil (adu Court ?ees
and 3uit Caluation Act. +n case, the 3uit is subse0uently attracted under the /roviso to 3ection
2#, it has to be converted into that a 3uit for declaration and for conse0uential reliefs and at the
said contingency only it will be covered under 3ection 2'7b8 of the Tamil (adu Court ?ee and
3uit Caluation Act.
2011 115 TLN" 37 1Ci+il5
M( )iliammal a$d oth!r,
+,
V!$9o.al a$d oth!r,
Ci+il Proc!dr! Cod! 140& a, am!$d!d, Ord!r 2 Rl! 2 % Prior ,it 3or @ar!
i$A$ctio$ @# th! a9r!!m!$t hold!r8.rcha,!r % lat!r ,!co$d ,it 3il!d 3or ,.!ci3ic
.!r3orma$c! *ithot l!a+! o3 th! cort i$ th! 3ir,t ,it % P!titio$ 3il!d i$ th! ,!co$d ,it 3or
S.!ci3ic .!r3orma$c!, to r!A!ct th! .lai$t $d!r ord!r 7 rl! 11 CPC % trial cort di,mi,,!d
th! a..licatio$ % o$ r!+i,io$ :i9h Cort h!ld that *h!$ .lai$ti33 3il!d !arli!r ,it o$ th!
all!9atio$ o3 di,.o,,!,,io$ h! ha, a d!3i$it! ca,! o3 actio$ to !$3orc! ,al! a9r!!m!$t % a, t
h! ,am! *a, ,o9ht a$d a, $o l!a+! *a, o@tai$!d 3or 3ili$9 3r!,h ,it 3or omitt!d r!li!3, h!
ca$ $ot 3il! a$oth!r ,it 3or omitt!d r!li!3 % trial cort ord!r ,!t a,id! a$d Ci+il R!+i,io$
P!titio$ allo*!d(
2011-1( L(W( 6&
0a$!,a$
+,
Si+a.!rmal P ArA$a$ a$d oth!r
Ea,!m!$t, Act 12 o3 1&&25, S!ctio$ ;08ED.r!, or Im.li!d Lic!$c!, Irr!+oca@l!
lic!$c!, *hat i,, Co$dct a$d AcEi!,c!$c! % T!rm, a$d th! $atr! o3 th! $atr! o3 th!
lic!$,! ca$ @! 9ath!r!d 3rom th! .r.o,! 3or *hich th! lic!$,! i, 9ra$t!d co.l!d *ith th!
co$dct o3 th! .arti!, a$d th! circm,ta$c!, *hich l!d to th! 9ra$t o3 th! lic!$,! % Lic!$,!
i, irr!+oca@l! $d!r S!ctio$ ;01@5, i3 th! 3ollo*i$9 thr!! co$ditio$, ar! 3l3ill!dF-$am!l# 1i5
Th! lic!$,!! !D!ct!d *or/ o3 a .!rma$!$t charact!r, 1ii5 :! did ,o acti$9 .o$ th! lic!$,!
a$d 1iii5 :! i$crr!d !D.!$,!, i$ doi$9 ,o(
I$ thi, ca,! d!3!$da$t, ha+! admitt!d th! !Di,t!$c! o3 .i.!li$! @!$!ath th! la$d, 3or
$!arl# 17 #!ar,, @t th!# claim that th! ,am! *a, laid @# th!m % Admitt!dl#, th!# ha+!
.rcha,!d tho,! la$d, o$l# i$ th! #!ar 1443 a$d th! .i.!li$!, ar! i$ !Di,t!$c! 3or a@ot 17
#!ar, a$d ,o, it cold @! !a,il# i$3!rr!d that th! .!rmi,,io$ to la# .i.!li$!, thro9h th!
la$d, ha, @!!$ 9ra$t!d o$l# @# th! +!$dor o3 th! d!3!$da$t,(
Th!r! *a, $o o@A!ctio$ 3rom th! +!$dor o3 th! d!3!$da$t, a$d th!r! i, $o mat!rial
to i$3!r a$# ,ch o@A!ctio$ rai,!d @# th! d!3!$da$t, +!$dor % Th!r!3or!, it i, cl!ar that th!
$9
.i.!li$!, ha+! @!!$ laid @# th! .lai$ti33 *ith th! .!rmi,,io$ o3 th! d!3!$da$t,? +!$dor %
Th! ri9ht ,o co$3!rr!d i, lic!$,! % Th! 9ra$t o3 lic!$,! ma# @! !D.r!,, or im.li!d(
I$ thi, ca,!, th! a..!lla$t ha, laid .i.!li$!, *hich ar! .!rma$!$t i$ $atr! a$d ha,
i$crr!d !D.!$,!, i$ !D!ctio$ th!r!o3 acti$9 o$ th! lic!$,! % I3 th! +!$dor o3 th!
d!3!$da$t, did $ot 9ra$t a$# lic!$,!, th!$ th!# *old $ot ha+! .!rmitt!d th! a..!lla$t to
la# .i.!li$!, @!$!ath th!ir la$d a$d *old ha+! c!rtai$l# rai,!d o@A!ctio$, % Th!# *old
ha+! ta/!$ ,t!., to r!mo+! tho,! .i.!li$!, o$c! th!# com! to /$o* that th! .i.!li$!, ar!
laid i$ th!ir la$d % Th!ir co$dct o3 acEi!,c!$c! to th! .i.!li$!, laid i$ th!ir la$d i,
,33ici!$t to ,ho* that th! lic!$,! *a, irr!+oca@l! % Th!r! i, al,o $othi$9 o$ r!cord to ,ho*
that th! lic!$,or had r!tai$!d ri9ht to r!+o/! th! lic!$,!(
Th! 3i$di$9, o3 th! lo*!r a..!llat! cort ca$$ot @! ,,tai$!d a, it i, a9ai$,t th!
im.ort o3 S!ctio$ ;01@5 % S!co$d A..!al allo*!d(
2011 115 CTC 22
P()( Va,d!+a$ Pillai a$d oth!r
+,
Ma$i/a$da$ Nair a$d oth!r,
a$d
P( Sada,i+am Nair
+,
Ma$i/a$da$ a$d oth!r,
a$d
P( Sada,i+am Nair
+,
Th! -i,trict Coll!ctor a$d oth!r,
Tamil Nad :i$d R!li9io, a$d Charita@l! E$do*m!$t, Act, 1424, S!ctio$, ;11&5,
;1205, ;3 G 10& % Cod! o3 Ci+il Proc!dr!, 140&, S!ctio$ 4 % O,t!r o3 "ri,dictio$ %
S!ctio$ 10& ha, t*o lim@, % Cir,t lim@ r!lat!, to admi$i,tratio$ a$d ma$a9!m!$t o3
r!li9io, i$,tittio$ % S!co$d r!lat!, to a$# oth!r matt!r or di,.t! 3or d!t!rmi$atio$ o3
*hich .ro+i,io$ i, mad! i$ TN:R G CE Act % L!,tio$ ari,i$9 i$ Sit i, *h!th!r or $ot
.articlar t!m.l! i, .@lic or .ri+at! t!m.l! % S!ctio$ ;3 o3 TN:R G CE Act !m.o*!r,
"oi$t Commi,,io$!r or -!.t# Commi,,io$!r to !$Eir! i$to a$d d!cid! di,.t! *h!th!r
i$,tittio$ i, r!li9io, i$,tittio$ or $ot % L!,tio$ i$+ol+!d i$ Sit *old 3all $d!r S!co$d
lim@ o3 S!ctio$ ;3 a, machi$!r# $d!r ,aid S!ctio$ ha, .o*!r to d!cid! ,ch di,.t! % Ci+il
Cort *old ha+! Ari,dictio$ i3 ,ch di,.t! *hich 3all, $d!r ,!co$d lim@ o3 S!ctio$ 10&
i, o$l# i$cid!$tal or a$cillar# % I,,! i$+ol+!d i$ Sit a, to *h!th!r t!m.l! i, .@lic or
.ri+at! i, ,@,ta$tial a$d Ci+il Cort?, Ari,dictio$ i, @arr!d(
Cact,F
Three 3uits were filed in respect of a temple. The first 3uit was between group of
persons claiming to be hereditary trustees of a private temple on the one hand and the members
of the general public on the other hand. The prayer in the 3uit was for declaration that right of
the /laintiffs to administer the temple and its properties and for in1unction. The 0uestion of
1urisdiction of Civil Court to try the 3uit was decided by Courts below and confirmed in 3econd
Appeal.
$%
Cod! o3 Ci+il Proc!dr!, 140& 12 o3 140&5, Ord!r 61, Rl! 31 % Cir,t A..!llat! Cort
3ram!d o$l# o$! .oi$t 3or co$,id!ratio$ +iI( *h!th!r A..!al d!,!r+!d to @! allo*!d or $ot
% Cailr! to 3ram! .oi$t, 3or d!t!rmi$atio$ *old $ot a33!ct Ad9m!$t o3 Cir,t A..!llat!
Cort i$ +i!* o3 th! total @ar o3 Ari,dictio$ o3 Ci+il a$d co$crr!$t 3i$di$9, o3 Cort,
@!lo*(
4rder #$, "ule 2$, C./.C. re0uires the 1udgment of the Appellate Court to state 7a8 the
points for determination; 7b8 the decision thereon; 7c8 the reasons for the decision; and 7d8 where
the decree appealed from is reversed or varied, the relief to which the Appellant is entitled.
<nfortunately, in the case on hand, the only point for determination framed by the Appellate
Court was whether the Appeal deserved to be allowed or not. Therefore, there is no doubt that
there was a failure on the part of the Appellate Court to frame appropriate points for
determination.
Cod! o3 Ci+il Proc!dr!, 140& 12 o3 140&5, Ord!r 16, Rl! 1 % Crami$9 o3 i,,!, %
I,,!, ar! 3ram!d *h!$ mat!rial .ro.o,itio$ o3 3act or la* i, a33irm!d @# o$! .art# a$d
d!$i!d @# oth!r .art# % Mat!rial .ro.o,itio$, ar! tho,! .ro.o,itio$, o3 la* or 3act, *hich
Plai$ti33 m,t all!9! to ,ho* ri9ht to ,! or *hich -!3!$da$t m,t all!9! to co$,titt! hi,
d!3!$c! % Cod! do!, $ot d!3i$! or d!al *ith mai$ a$d8or a$cillar# i,,!, % O@,!r+atio$,
mad! i$ thi, r!9ard(
As a matter of fact, the Code of Civil /rocedure does not talk about main issues and
ancillary or incidental issues. 4rder $# speaks only about two types of issues vi5., 7i8 issues of
fact and 7ii8 issues of law. 4rder $#, "ule $7$8 states that issues arise when a material
proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. 3ub."ule 728 of "ule
$ of 4rder $#, makes it clear that )material propositions are those propositions of law or fact
which a /laintiff must allege in order to show a right to use or a -efendant must allege in order
to constitute his defence*. 3ub."ule 728 of "ule $ of 4rder $# makes it mandatory for the Court
to frame a distinct issue in respect of every material proposition affirmed by one party and dined
by the other.
2011-1( L(W( ;;
Mr( )( Sa$tha$am
+,
M,( S( )a+itha thro9h h!r ,@(.o*!r a9!$t oth!r,
C(P(C(, Ord!r III, R(2, :i9h Cort Am!$dm!$t 1Madra,58Pl!adi$9,, Ord!r VI,
Rr(16, 12, Ord!r 7, R(11 a$d S!ctio$ 2;8Po*!r o3 Attor$!# to .ro,!ct! ,it o$ @!hal3 o3
.ri$ci.al, .!rmi,,i@ilit#, Rati3icatio$ o3 act, @# Pri$ci.al, I$,tittio$ o3 ,it,, Sco.! o3(
Ci+il Rl!, o3 Practic!, Rl!, 1;, 17,
Co$tract Act 11&725, S!ctio$ 140,
Practic! a$d Proc!dr!8Pl!adi$9,, i$,tittio$ a$d .ro,!ctio$ o3 ,it, @# .o*!r
a9!$t,, E33!ct o3,
Co$,tittio$ o3 I$dia, Articl! 227(
A..licatio$ ,!!/i$9 .!rmi,,io$ to .ro,!ct! th! ,it o$ @!hal3 o3 th! .lai$ti33, o$ th!
@a,i, o3 th! r!cti3i!d d!!d o3 .o*!r o3 attor$!# *a, allo*!d @# th! lo*!r cort %
2;
Chall!$9i$9 th! ,aid ord!r, th! d!3!$da$t i$ th! ,it ha, com! . *ith th! a@o+! ci+il
r!+i,io$ .!titio$(
Plai$ti33 ha, a ri9ht to r!cti3# th! d!3!ct i$ th! .r!,!$tatio$ o3 th! .lai$t % A
d!3!cti+! .r!,!$tatio$ o3 a .lai$t, ca$$ot r!,lt i$ th! r!A!ctio$ o3 th! .lai$t % Trial Cort
*a, A,ti3i!d i$ allo*i$9 th! a..licatio$ 3il!d $d!r Ord!r III, Rl! 2, CPC, ,i$c! th!
.ri$ci.al ha, ,.!ci3icall# rati3i!d th! act, % CRP di,mi,,!d(
6hile 4rder +++, enables Fthe holder of a power of attorney! to appear, apply and act on
behalf of a party to a suit, as his Frecognised agent!, 4rder C+, "ule $#, enables Fany person duly
authori5ed by a party to sign the pleading! if the party pleading is, by reason of absence or for
other good cause, unable to sign the pleading. Thus, it appears from 4rder C+, "ule $#, that even
in the absence of a power of attorney, a party to a suit is entitled to have the pleading signed on
his behalf, by any person duly authori5ed by him to sign. This inference is inevitable on account
of the difference in the expression used in 4rder +++, "ule 2, vis.I.vis.4rder C+, "ule $#. 6hile
4rder +++, "ule 2, uses the expressions )recognised agents* and )persons holding powers of
attorney*, 4rder C+, "ule $#, uses the phrase Fany person duly authorised by him*. "ule $'7$8 of
the 4rder C+, goes one step further and empowers )some other person* to verify the pleadings, if
it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that he is ac0uainted with the facts of the case.
2011 115 CTC &0
M( La/,hma$a$
+,
ICICI Ha$/ Em.lo#!!,? '$io$, r!.( @# it, S!cr!tar#,
Word, a$d Phra,!, % < Moral Tr.itd!= % What i, %Phra,! <Moral Tr.itd!=
ca$$ot @! accrat!l# d!3i$!d % Act o3 @a,!$!,,, +il!$!,, or d!.ra+it# i$ .ri+at! a$d ,ocial
dti!, *hich !+!r# ma$ o*!, to a$oth!r ma$ a$d to ,oci!t# ca$ @! t!rm!d a, act, i$+ol+i$9
moral tr.itd! % T!,t that ,hold @! !m.lo#!d to 3i$d ot *h!th!r .articlar o33!$c!
i$+ol+!, moral tr.itd! or $ot i, to 3i$d ot 1a5 *h!th!r act l!adi$9 to co$+ictio$ *a, ,ch
a, *old ,hoc/ moral co$,ci!$c! o3 ,oci!t# i$ 9!$!ral 1@5 *h!th!r moti+! @!hi$d act *a,
@a,! o$! a$d *h!th!r .!r.!trator cold @! co$,id!r!d to @! o3 d!.ra+!d charact!r or
.!r,o$ *ho *a, loo/!d-do*$ .o$ @# ,oci!t# % ED.r!,,io$ m!a$, a$#thi$9 co$trar# to
ho$!,t#, mod!,t# a$d 9ood moral, % L!,tio$ o3 o33!$c! o3 moral tr.itd! *ill d!.!$d o$
3act, o3 ca,!(
Cact,F
A @ank employee, while in service, entered into a partnership business with third parties
and had borrowed sums of monies from them and another person. e had borrowed monies on
the strength of the promise that he would sell the lands to them. e issued three che0ues to them
in discharge of the debt. The che0ues were dishonoured and the employee was convicted for
offence under 3ection $29 and sentenced to imprisonment. The employee was also subse0uently
dismissed from service. 3ection 2$.A Trade <nions Act prohibits such employee from being a
member of the executive or any other office bearer of a Trade <nion. +n1unction was granted
against such employee. Appeal dismissed.
?act K )Eoral turpitude* is a phrase which can hardly be accurately defined. +t can have
various shades of meaning in the various sets of circumstances. The concept of moral turpitude
escapes from precise definition, but has been described as )an act of baseness, vileness or
2$
depravity in private and social duties which a man owes to fellow men and to the society in
general.* +n Criminal law, the expression )moral turpitude* is used to describe the conduct that
is considered contrary to community standards of 1ustice, honesty and good morals. The
expression )moral turpitude* can also be described as the criminal behaviour that is inherently
bad, which is known as )malum in se* in contrast to the behaviour that is bad merely because it is
forbidden in law, known as )malum prohibitum.*
2011-1( L(W( 42
Vi$od M(Pat!l, S8o( Ma+Ai Pat!l, Pro.ri!tor, Sri M!!$a/,hi Stor!,,
SI-CO I$d,trial E,tat!, Ma$9ala.ram a$d oth!r
+,
Th! Hra$ch Ma$a9!r, SI-CO, Tir$!l+!li -10, Tir$!l+!li -i,trict(
Tamil Nad P@lic Pr!mi,!, 1E+ictio$ o3 $athori,!d Occ.a$t,5 Act, S!ctio$
68Notic!, 128Har o3 Ci+il Cort?, Ari,dictio$, Tra$,3!r o3 Pro.!rt# Act 11&&25, S!ctio$ 10;(
S!ctio$ 6 o3 th! Act !$+i,a9!, o$l# a $otic! to Eit 9i+i$9 a tim! o3 $ot l!,, tha$ t!$
da#, 3or +acati$9 % A..!lla$t, *!r! 9i+!$ thirt# da#, tim! % S!ctio$ 12 .ro+id!, a @ar to
!$t!rtai$ a$# ,it or .roc!!di$9, i$ r!,.!ct o3 !+ictio$ o3 a$# .!r,o$, *ho i, i$ occ.atio$
o3 a$# $athori,!d .@lic .r!mi,!, % Sit 3il!d @# th! a..!lla$t,8.lai$ti33, to .r!m.t th!
athoriti!, 3rom ta/i$9 .roc!!di$9, $d!r th! a@o+! ,aid Act i, cl!arl# @arr!d % S!co$d
A..!al di,mi,,!d(
2011 115 CTC 42
S()( "!#arhaaA
+,
Ha@# P Rohi$i a$d oth!r,
Cod! o3 Ci+il Proc!dr!, 140& 12 o3 140&5, Ord!r 7, Rl! 11 % :i$d Marria9! Act,
1422 122 o3 14225, S!ctio$ 1; % Plai$t % R!A!ctio$ o3 % R!+i,io$ a9ai$,t di,mi,,al o3
A..licatio$ to r!A!ct Plai$t % Plai$t i$ a Sit 3or .artitio$ a$d ,!.arat! .o,,!,,io$ ,o9ht to
@! r!A!ct!d o$ 9ro$d that childr!$ @or$ thro9h @i9amo, marria9! ar! !$titl!d to i$h!rit
i$ r!,.!ct o3 .ro.!rti!, o3 3ath!r @t $ot i$ a$c!,tral .ro.!rti!, % Cor ,tri/i$9 o33 Plai$t,
a+!rm!$t, i$ Plai$t ca$ @! co$,id!r!d % Prima 3aci!, Plai$ti33, ar! !$titl!d to claim ,har! i$
,it .ro.!rti!, % Th!r! ar! $!c!,,ar# all!9atio$, i$ Plai$t to ,,tai$ Sit % Ci+il R!+i,io$
P!titio$ di,mi,,!d(
Cact,F
+n a "evision against dismissal of Application seeking to re1ect the /laint, igh Court
held that /laint can be re1ected only on the basis of averments contained therein and found that
there wee necessary allegations to sustain the 3uit and dismissed the "evision.
:!ldF
+ am not able to accept the contention of the learned 3enior Counsel. +t is the settled law
that for striking down a /laint, we will have to go by the averments made in the /laint and the
documents filed in support of the /laint. +n this case, as stated supra, the case of the /laintiffs is
22
that Ceeraboyan settled the properties giving vested reminder to the male grandchildren and the
/laintiffs, being the grandchildren of Ceeraboyan, are entitled to a share along with the 3econd
-efendant, who is the son of late 3.C. Dumaresan through his first wifle Damalam Dumaresan,
the ?irst -efendant in the 3uit. +t is further stated in the plaint in para # that the suit properties
were the self.ac0uired properties of late Ceeraboyan. Therefore, as per the averments made in
the /laint, the properties are the self.ac0uired properties of Ceeraboyan and the 0uestion whether
the properties are ancestral properties in the hands of Ceeraboyan or not can be decided by the
Court below during trial and that cannot be presumed at this stage. ?urther, the /laintiffs claim
to be the children of 3.C. Dumaresan through his second wife and they are also claiming right
over the suit properties on the basis of the 3ettlement -eed executed by Ceeraboyan. +n the
3ettlement -eed, it has been stated that the sons shall en1oy the properties without any power of
alienation and thereafter their male 3anthathis shall en1oy the properties absolutely.
2011 115 CTC 4;
T()(T( 0arm!$t,, Pro.ri!tor, T()( Tha$9a+!l
+,
Th! Ma$a9!r, Sri HalaAi Tra$,.ort Li$!,
Cod! o3 Ci+il Proc!dr!, 140& 12 o3 140&5, Ord!r ;, Rl! 17 % Am!$dm!$t o3 Plai$t
a3t!r la.,! o3 limitatio$ .!riod o3 3 #!ar, % P!rmi,,i@ilit# o3 % Ori9i$al Sit *a, 3il!d
a9ai$,t Ma$a9!r a$d Hra$ch Ma$a9!r l!a+i$9 ot !,ta@li,hm!$t % Lat!r Plai$t *a, ,o9ht
to @! am!$d!d to !33!ct that !,ta@li,hm!$t *a, @!i$9 im.l!ad!d a, -!3!$da$t r!.r!,!$t!d
@# it, Ma$a9i$9 Part$!r, % Claim i, @arr!d @# tim! a$d ord!r o3 Trial Cort allo*i$9
am!$dm!$t 3rom dat! o3 A..licatio$ alo$!, h!ld, .ro.!r(
Cact,F
The 3uit was filed for recovery of money on a concluded contract. The /laintiff sought
to amend the /laint to implead the establishment represented by its Eanaging /artners. The
same was resisted on the ground that originally no claim was made against the establishment and
thereof it was barred by time. The Trial Court allowed the Application in part, taking effect from
the date of the Amendment Application and not relate back to the date of 3uit.
:!ldF
At the outset, the Eanager s of the three Transport Companies were impleaded as the
-efendants. 6hen the description of the -efendants mentioned in the small cause title and long
cause title are considered, it appears that only the Eanager of the ?irst -efendant and @ranch
Eanagers of the 3econd and Third -efendants have been impleaded as parties and the claim has
been made against them as if they are liable to pay the money. /resently, the /etitioners sought
to amend the /laint so as to make the Transport Companies themselves liable to pay the money
and prayed that they have to be represented through their Eanaging /artners. The 3uit was filed
on ;&.$$.2;;2 and the 6ritten 3tatement was filed on #.$2.2;;2. The Amendment Application
was filed on 2'.9.2;;&, admittedly after the lapse of over three years. ence, it is the vehement
contention of the learned Counsel for the "espondents Er. +.C. Casudevan that the Amendment
Application is time barred and no relief could be granted to the /laintiff.
22
2011 115 CTC 111
Hha@a$i Pra,ad "!$a
+,
Co$+!$or S!cr!tar#, Ori,,a Stat! Commi,,io$ 3or Wom!$ G A$r(
M!dical "ri,.rd!$c! % I$dia$ E+id!$c! Act, 1&72 11 o3 1&725 S!ctio$ 112 % -NA
T!,t % Wh!$ to @! dir!ct!d @# Cort % Co$ditio$, 9o+!r$i$9 % ',! o3 -NA t!,t to
d!t!rmi$! .at!r$it# o3 a child, a$ !Dtr!m!l# d!licat! a$d ,!$,iti+! a,.!ct % A..ar!$t
co$3lict !Di,t, @!t*!!$ ri9ht to .ri+ac# o3 a .!r,o$ $ot to ,@mit him,!l3 3orci@l# to m!dical
!Dami$atio$ a$d dt# o3 Cort to r!ach trth % O$! +i!* that *h!$ mod!r$ ,ci!$c! 9i+!,
m!a$, to a,c!rtai$i$9 .at!r$it# o3 a child, ,ch m!a$, to @! ,!d *ithot h!,itatio$
*h!$!+!r occa,io$ ari,!, % :o*!+!r, a$oth!r +i!* that Cort, to @! r!lcta$t i$ ,! o3
,ch ,ci!$ti3ic ad+a$c!, a$d tool, *hich r!,lt i$ i$+a,io$ o3 ri9ht to .ri+ac# o3 a$
i$di+idal % Sch t!,t, ma# ha+! d!+a,tati$9 !33!ct o$ child a$d ma# @a,tardi,! a$ i$$oc!$t
child !+!$ tho9h hi,8h!r .ar!$t, *!r! li+i$9 to9!th!r dri$9 co$c!.tio$ % Th,, Cort,
$ot to dir!ct -NA t!,t, a, matt!r o3 cor,! or i$ a roti$! ma$$!r % Cort, to co$,id!r
di+!r,! a,.!ct, i$cldi$9 .r!,m.tio$ $d!r S!ctio$ 112 o3 E+id!$c! Act, .ro, a$d co$, o3
,ch ord!r a$d t!,t o3 >!mi$!$t $!!d? *h!th!r it i, $ot .o,,i@l! 3or Cort to r!ach trth
*ithot ,! o3 ,ch t!,t % Ord!r o3 -NA t!,t to @! mad! o$l# *h!$ a ,tro$9 .rima 3aci!
ca,! i, mad! ot(
Cact,F
Complaint filed by "espondent herein before the 4rissa 3tate Commission for 6oman
alleging that she was married to the Appellant herein and due to torture meted out by him and his
family members she got separated, has no source of income and is pregnant. The Commission
upon en0uiry issued directions for payment of maintenance and ordered the -(A test of the
Appellant herein.
:!ldF
+n a matter where paternity of a child is in issue before the Court, the use of -(A is an
extremely delicate and sensitive aspect. 4ne view is that when modern science gives means of
ascertaining the paternity of a child, there should not be any hesitation to use those means
whenever the occasion re0uires. The other view is that the Court must be reluctant in use of such
scientific advances and tools which result in invasion of right to privacy of an individual and may
not only be pre1udicial to the rights of the parties but may have devastating effect on the child.
3ometimes the result of such scientific test may bastardise an innocent child even though his
mother and her spouse were living together during the time of conception. +n our view, when
there is apparent conflict between the right to privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly
to medical examination and duty of the Court to reach the truth, the Court must exercise its
discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a
1ust decision in the matter, -(A is eminently needed. -(A in a matter relating to paternity of a
child should not be directed by the Court as a matter of course or in a routine manner, whenever
such a re0uest is made. The Court has to consider diverse aspects including presumption under
3ection $$2 of the ,vidence Act; pros and cons of such order and the test of Feminent need!
whether it is not possible for the Court to reach the truth without use of such test.
2#
2011 115 CTC 122
Mala#alam Pla$tatio$, Ltd(
+,
Stat! o3 )!rala G a$oth!r
Cod! o3 Ci+il Proc!dr!, 140& 12 o3 140&5, Ord!r 61, Rl! 27 % Prodctio$ o3
additio$al !+id!$c! at A..!llat! ,ta9! % I3 a$# P!titio$ i, 3il!d $d!r Ord!r 61, Rl! 27, it i,
i$cm@!$t o$ .art o3 A..!llat! Cort to co$,id!r a, to *h!th!r docm!$t ,o9ht to @!
addc!d ha, a$# r!l!+a$c! to i,,!, i$+ol+!d % Additio$al !+id!$c! ca$$ot @! .!rmitt!d to
@! addc!d to 3ill . lac$a! i$ ca,! % Cort i, r!Eir!d to ta/! a d!ci,io$ o$! *a# or oth!r,
*h!$ a$ A..licatio$ i, 3il!d $d!r Ord!r 61, Rl! 27(
Cact,F
+n Civil Appeals, the 3upreme Court held that when an Application is filed for reception
of additional evidence of under 4rder #$, "ule 2: of the Code of Civil /rocedure, it is the duty of
the Court to deal with same on merits and that additional evidence cannot be permitted to enable
the party fill up the lacunae.
:!ldF
+n view of the above provision, in our opinion, when an Application for reception of
additional evidence under 4rder #$, "ule 2: of C./.C. was filed by the parties, it was the duty of
the igh Court to deal with the same on merits. The above principle has been reiterated by this
Court in Batinder 3ingh G Anr. v. Eehar 3ingh G 4rs. 2;;9 7'8 CTC 2:# 73C8 K A+" 2;;% 3C
2'# and 3hyam =opal @indal and 4thers v. >and Ac0uisition 4fficer and another, 2;$; 728 3CC
2$&.
+f any /etition is filed under 4rder #$, "ule 2:, in an Appeal, it is incumbent on the part
of the Appellate Court to consider at the time of hearing the Appeal on merits so as to find out
whether the documents or evidence sought to be adduced have any relevanceJbearing in the
issues involved. +t is trite to observe that under order #$, "ule 2:, additional evidence could be
adduced in on of the three situations, namely, 7a8 whether the Trial Court has illegally refused the
evidence although it ought to have been permitted; 7b8 whether the evidence sought to be
adduced by the party was not available to it despite the exercise of due diligence; 7c8 whether
additional evidence was necessary in order to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce the
1udgment or any other substantial cause of similar nature. +t is e0ually well.settled that additional
evidence cannot be permitted to be adduced so as to fill in the lacunae or to patch up the weak
points in the case.
2011 115 TLN" 1;4 1Ci+il5
RaA!$dra$
+,
A( Sami$atha$
Ci+il Proc!dr! Cod! 140& a, am!$d!d, Ord!r 1&, Rl! 3A % Sit d!claratio$ %
Plai$ti33 *a, !Dami$!d a$d !Dhi@it, mar/!d % ca,! adAor$!d 3or 3rth!r !Dami$atio$ @t
.lai$ti33 had .aral#tic attac/ % *i3! ,o9ht .!rmi,,io$ to @! !Dami$!d a$d 3il! .roo3
a33ida+it % d!3!$da$t, r!,i,t!d a, *ithot com.l!tio$ o3 PW1 3rth!r !+id!$c! ca$ $ot @!
ta/!$ % trial cort r!A!ct!d co$t!$tio$ a$d allo*!d .!titio$ % o$ r!+i,io$ :i9h Cort
2'
modi3i!d th! ord!r holdi$9 that Cort ,hall a,c!rtai$ 3rom .lai$ti33 a@ot hi, a+aila@ilit#
3or !Dami$atio$ a$d i$ ca,!, .lai$ti33 $ot a+aila@l! 3or 3rth!r !+id!$c!, ,tat!m!$t alr!ad#
r!ord!r!d to @! !,ch!*!d a$d Cort ma# !Dami$! .lai$ti33?, *i3! - Ci+il R!+i,io$ .!titio$
.artl# allo*!d(
2011 115 TLN" 177 1Ci+il5
Tamil Nad Stat! Tra$,.ort Cor.oratio$ 1)m@a/o$am5 -i+i,io$ IV Limit!d
+,
Th! Tirchira..alli Co$,m!r Co-o.!rati+! Whol!,al! Stor!,, Trich#
Ci+il Proc!dr! Cod! 140& a, am!$d!d, Ord!r 4, Rl! 3 % Sit a9ai$,t thr!!
d!3!$da$t, % 2
$d
d!3!$da$t, co$t!,t!d th! ,it % Sit di,mi,,!d a9ai$,t 2
$d
d!3!$da$t % ,it
d!cr!!d a9ai$,t 1
,t
a$d 3
rd
d!3!$da$t % !+!$ tho9h d!3!$da$t 1 a$d 3 *!r! ,!t !D .art!, th!
Ad9m!$t o3 th! cort @!lo* ca$$ot @! t!rm!d a, a$ !D .art! d!cr!! a, it *a, .a,,!d a3t!r
3ll trial % Ci+il R!+i,io$ P!titio$ di,mi,,!d(
2011 115 TLN" 1&0 1Ci+il5
)( S!/ar S8o(Lat! R( )..,am# a$d oth!r
+,
N(V(0(H(RaAaram a$d oth!r,
Tamil Nad Hildi$9, 1L!a,! a$d R!$t Co$trol5 Rl!,, 1476 % A..licatio$ to @ri$9
o$ r!cord th! l!9al r!.r!,!$tati+!, o3 th! t!$a$t 3il!d $d!r Ord!r 22, Rl! 3 CPC % i$,t!ad
o3 $d!r 22 o3 R!$t Co$trol Rl!, % 3ili$9 o3 .!titio$ $d!r *ro$9 .ro+i,io$, i, $ot a
9ro$d to r!3,i$9 im.l!adi$9 o3 th! l!9al r!.r!,!$tati+!, % 3ili$9 R!$t Co$trol a..!al a$d
.!titio$ to @ri$9 o$ r!cord l!9al r!.r!,!$tati+!, ar! collat!ral .roc!!di$9, d!la# i$ 3ili$9
.!titio$ d!,!r+!, to @! co$do$!d or oth!r*i,! th! la$d lord *old @! ,@A!ct!d to 9r!at
.r!Adic! a$d hard,hi. % Ci+il R!+i,io$ P!titio$ di,mi,,!d(
2011 115 TLN" 210 1Ci+il5
0a$9a )ri,h$a$
+,
M8,(HaAaA E$t!r.ri,!, R!.( H# it, .ro.ri!tor Mr(Sri Cha$d HaAaA,
ha+i$9 o33ic! at :ard!+i Cham@!r
S.!ci3ic R!li!3 Act 14;3, S!ctio$ 36 % S!! Tamil Nad Cort C!!, a$d Sit +alatio$
Act 1422, S!ctio$ 22 1@5 G 1d5(
Tamil Nad Cort C!!, a$d Sit Valatio$ Act 1422, S!ctio$ 221@5 G 1d5 % Plai$t
3il!d 3or d!claratio$ alo$! *ithot % o33ic! r!tr$!d .lai$t a, ,it 3all $d!r ,!ctio$ 22 1@5 %
o$ r!+i,io$ :i9h Cort d!clar!d that d!claratio$ ,hall $ot @! i,,!d i3 .lai$ti33 i, a@l! to
,!!/ 3rth!r r!li!3 tha$ m!r! d!claratio$ a$d omitt!d to ,!!/ % at th! ,ta9! o3 .r!,!$tatio$
cort ha, to 9o thro9h .la$t a+!rm!$t alo$! % 3rth!r r!li!3 ca$ @! d!cid!d a3t!r i,,! o3
,mmo$, a$d o$ th! @a,i, o3 a+!rm!$t, i$ th! *ritt!$ ,tat!m!$t % r!tr$ o3 .lai$t h!ld i,
i$corr!ct % dir!ctio$ 9i+!$ to r!.r!,!$t .lai$t % Ci+il R!+i,io$ P!titio$ ord!r!d *ith
dir!ctio$,(
2&
2011 115 TLN" 213 1Ci+il5
M$ia..a$
+,
Po$$i
E+id!$c! Act 1&72, S!ctio$ 112 % S!! :i$d Marria9! 1422, S!ctio$ 131ia5 G 13115
1i5 1i@5(
:i$d Marria9! Act 1422, S!ctio$ 13 1ia5 G 131151i51i@5 % P!titio$ 3or di,,oltio$ o3
marria9! @# h,@a$d % IA 3il!d ,!!/i$9 dir!ctio$ 3or @lood t!,t o3 *i3! to 3i$d ot @iolo9ical
3ath!r o3 child % trial cort di,mi,,!d a, *i3! ca$$ot @! com.!ll!d to ,@A!ct h!r,!l3 to
@lood t!,t % o$ r!+i,io$ :i9h Cort !D.r!,,!d that !Dami$atio$ o3 a .art# to a matrimo$ial
liti9atio$ $ot +iolati+! o3 .!r,o$al li@!rt# % Ci+il R!+i,io$ P!titio$ allo*!d(
2011-1( L(W( 63;
P( S!$thil /mar
+,
R( S$itha
0ardia$, a$d Ward, Act, S!ctio$ 7, :i$d Mi$orit# a$d 0ardia$,hi. Act 1142;5,
S!ctio$ ;(
P!titio$!r ha, $ot mad! a$# .a#m!$t to*ard, mai$t!$a$c! o3 hi, *i3! a$d mi$or
child a$d 3ail!d to di,char9! hi, moral a$d l!9al o@li9atio$, % All o3 a ,dd!$, a3t!r $!arl#
3ort!!$ #!ar,, h! ha, com! ot *ith a$ a..licatio$ $d!r th! Act, 3or c,tod# a$d
9ardia$,hi. o3 th! mi$or ,o$(
Cath!r, *ho 3ail, to di,char9! hi, moral a$d l!9al o@li9atio$, $d!r la* to .ro+id!
!+!$ th! @a,ic $!!d, to th! child, ha, $o moral co$,ci!$c! to co$t!$t that h! *a, al*a#,
r!ad# a$d *illi$9 to .ro+id! th! @!,t that th! child r!Eir!d % Sch a .!r,o$ i, di,-!$titl!d
to ,!!/ 3or c,tod# a$d 9ardia$,hi. o3 th! child, 3or th! ,im.l! r!a,o$ that th! moral 3i@r!
i, totall# a@,!$t i$ hi, co$dct(
M!r!l# @!ca,! th! 3ath!r i, th! $atral 9ardia$, h! i, $ot !$titl!d to ha+! .riorit#
o+!r th! moth!r o3 th! child i$ th! mat!r o3 c,tod# a$d 9ardia$,hi. % Paramo$t *!l3ar!
o3 th! child alo$! i, th! co$,id!ratio$(
Co$dct o3 th! .!titio$!r i$ tr!ati$9 th! r!,.o$d!$t cr!ll#, @# th! do@ti$9 th!
.ar!$ta9! o3 th! child, at th! tim! o3 adAdicati$9 th! di+orc! .roc!!di$9,, i$t!r-,!, i, a
r!l!+a$t 3actor, 3or th! .r.o,! o3 a ,!,,i$9 th! charact!r o3 th! .!r,o$, *ho ,!!/, c,tod#
a$d 9ardia$,hi. o3 th! child(
",t @!ca,!, o$! o3 th! co$t!$d!r, i, a33l!$t tha$ th! oth!r, @t do!, $ot .o,,!,,
moral ,ta$dard,, *hich i, !D.!ct!d o3, c,tod# a$d 9ardia$,hi. o3 th! child ca$$ot ,im.l#
@! !$tr,t!d i9$ori$9 th! .aramo$t *!l3ar! o3 th! child(
Child ha, @!!$ !$Eir!d a$d ha, !D.r!,,!d ha..i$!,, a$d d!,ir! to @! *ith th!
r!,.o$d!$t-moth!r(
2:
+t could be seen if there is no defect in the personal character or if he is not shown to be
otherwise, undesirable, he may have an edge over the mother, in claiming custody and
guardianship of the minor children, in view of the stationary provision. @ut ultimately, it is the
paramount welfare of the minor child, which has to be considered by the Court, taking into
consideration, various factors.
2011 115 CTC 63&
C( Madh
+,
)( VaAra+!l
Cod! o3 Ci+il Proc!dr!, 140& 12 o3 140&5, Ord!r 4, Rl! 13 G Ord!r 17, Rl!, 2 G 3
% E33!ct o3 .ro+i,io$, di,c,,!d % R!,.o$d!$t 3il!d a Motor Accid!$t Claim P!titio$ 3or
com.!$,atio$ % R!,.o$d!$t l!d !+id!$c! a$d clo,!d hi, ,id! % Ca,! .o,t!d 3or P!titio$!r?,
!+id!$c! % P!titio$!r did $ot a..!ar d!,.it! adAor$m!$t, % Trial Cort d!cr!!d claim %
P!titio$!r 3il!d A..licatio$ to ,!t a,id! !D .art! d!cr!! - R!,.o$d!$t 3il!d o@A!ctio$
co$t!$di$9 that d!cr!! *a, .a,,!d o$ m!rit, % Trial Cort .holdi$9 co$t!$tio$ di,mi,,!d
A..licatio$ % R!+i,io$ 3il!d % R!cord ,ho*, that P!titio$!r did $ot l!ad !+id!$c! a$d *a,
a@,!$t dri$9 h!ari$9 dat! % O$l# Ord!r 17, Rl! 2 a..lica@l! a$d $ot Rl! 3 % Ord!r o3
Trial Cort, h!ld, !rro$!o, a$d ,!t a,id! % R!+i,io$ P!titio$ allo*!d(
Cact,F
"espondent sustained +n1ury in a motor accident. e filed a Claim /etition seeking
compensation. The "espondent gave evidence on his side and the case was posted for
/etitioner!s evidence on $2.2.2;;2. The /etitioner did not produce evidence on that day and the
case was ad1ourned to 2'.2.2;;2. ,ven on that day, the /etitioner did not appear. Trial Court,
therefore, decreed the claim. Thereafter, the petitioner came up with an Application under 4rder
%, "ule $2 to set aside the ex parte -ecree. The Trial Court dismissed the Application holding
that the Claim /etition was decided on merits. Aggreived by that 4rder, the /etitioner preferred
this "evision. The on!ble igh Court allowed the "evision on the following linesK
:!ldF
The only point to be considered in the present "evision us as to whether the /etition
filed by the /etitioner under 4rder %, "ule $2, C./.C. is maintainable. The records of the
Tribunal were called for and perused and it is seen that the evidence on the side of the Claimant
was closed on 2&.2.2;;2 and the matter was posed on $2.2.2;;2 for the evidence on the side of
the /etitionerJ"espondent. 4n $2.2.2;;2, since the /etitioner herein did not produce any
evidence, once again the matter was posted on 2'.2.2;;2 as a last chance. ,ven on 2'.2.2;;2,
since no evidence was let in on the side of the /etitionerJ"espondent, the evidence on the
/etitioner!s side was closed and the matter was posted for orders on 9.#.2;;2. 4n 9.#.2;;2, the
Tribunal passed Budgment and order. A perusal of the order reveals that the Tribunal decided the
matter on merits and awarded compensation.
29
2011 115 CTC 62&
S( )amatchi a$d oth!r,
+,
0( Sara,*ath# a$d oth!r,
S.!ci3ic R!li!3 Act, 14;3 167 o3 14;35, S!ctio$ 34 % Tamil Nad P@lic :!alth Act,
1434 1T(N( Act 3 o3 14345, S!ctio$ 32 % Sit 3or ma$dator# i$A$ctio$ to r!mo+! ,!.tic ta$/
% Commi,,io$!r r!.ort ,ho*, ,!.tic ta$/ i, ,itat! *ithi$ 20 3!!t 3rom Plai$ti33?, *!ll a$d
co$tra+!$!, .ro+i,io$, o3 Act % Co$t!$tio$ that .ro+i,io$ o$l# m!a$, c!,,.ool, a$d $ot
,!.tic ta$/, $ot t!$a@l! % Word, c!,,.ool a$d ,!.tic ta$/ ar! ,#$o$#mo, % Co$crr!$t
3i$di$9, a, to r!mo+al o3 ,!.tic ta$/, h!ld, A,ti3i!d % -!cr!! co$3irm!d(
Cact,F
/laintiff filed a 3uit for mandatory in1unction for removal of the septic tanks situate on
the west and east of his property and for other reliefs. The /laintiff contended that
drainageJsewage water will be soaked in the septic tank and his well water will be contaminated
and may cause health ha5ard. e further contended that the distance between the well and the
septic tanks is less than '; feet and is against the provisions of 3ection 22 of the Tamil (adu
public ealth Act. The -efendant while denying the /laintiff!s contention pleaded that the Act
only mentions that a cesspool should not be constructed and does not mention about septic tank.
The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court decreed the 3uit holding that the two terms are
synonymous and the -efendants! contentions are untenable. 6hile approving the concurrent
decision, the on!ble igh Court dismissed the 3econd Appeal on the following linesK
:!ldK
?orm the above meanings of )cesspool* and septic tank*, it is clear that both the words
are synonymous to each other. ence, + do not find any merit in the argument advanced by
learned Counsel for the AppellantsJ-2 to -% regarding the interpretation given by the Courts
below for )cesspool*. The ?irst "espondentJ/laintiff has come forward with the 3uit, on the
ground that as the drainageJsewage water will be soaked in the septic tank, the 6ell water will be
contaminated by the bacterial infection, which causes health ha5ard to the inmates of the house of
the ?irst "espondentJ/laintiff. +n such circumstances, + am of the view that even though 3ection
22 of the Tamil (adu /ublic ealth Act, deals with )cesspool*, it would also include )septic
tanks*, as both are synonymous to each other.
6hile considering 3ection 22 of the Tamil (adu /ublic ealth Act along with the
learned Advocate Commissioner!s report and plan, + am of the view that the word )cesspool* is
synonymous to the word )septic tank*. ?urther, the AppellantsJ-2 to -% have never let in any
evidence in respect of the maintenance of septic tanks. @ut as per 3ection 22 of the Tamil (adu
/ublic ealth Act, the distance between the water course and the cesspool should be minimum
'; feet. Admittedly, in this case, the alleged septic tanks are constructed by the ten ?irst
-efendant 7deceased8 within '; feet of the 6ell of the ?irst "espondentJ/laintiff and hence, it
has to be held that the septic tanks are constructed in violation of 3ection 22 of the Tamil (adu
/ublic ealth Act. +n such circumstances, there is also no necessity to give any finding as to
whether the septic tanks have been properly maintained or not, and it is also not necessary to give
a finding that if the septic tanks have been properly maintained, it will not affect the 6ell water.
JJJJJ
2%
:I0: CO'RT CITATIONS
CRIMINAL CASE
120115 1 ML" 1Crl5 31
O(C( P!ri#a,am#
+,
-( V!$/at!,a$ P Ra+i
N!9otia@l! I$,trm!$t, Act 12; o3 1&&15, S!ctio$ 13& % Cod! o3 Crimi$al Proc!dr!,
1473 12 o3 14765, S!ctio$ 203 % Sco.! % No$-a..!ara$c! o3 com.lai$a$t @!3or! Cort %
Com.lai$t di,mi,,!d % :!ld, $o ill!9alit# committ!d @# Ma9i,trat! % Ht, i$ i$t!r!,t, o3
A,tic!, com.lai$a$t 9i+!$ cha$c! to .t 3orth hi, ca,! % Im.9$!d ord!r ,!t a,id!(
CACTS IN HRIECF
The complaint, who had filed the complaint under 3ection $29, (egotiable +nstruments
Act, did not appear before the Court on two successive dates and thus, his sworn statement could
not be recorded. The Eagistrate dismissed the complaint which led the complainant to file the
present revision against the above said dismissal order.
L'ERBF
Can the complaint be dismissed under 3ection 2;2, Cr./.C., for the absence of the com.
plaint, before recording the sworn statement of the complainantA
:!ldF
After filing the complaint and the Eagistrate, on receiving the complaint, fixes any date
for recording the sworn statement of the complainant and the complainant is absent on the date
and also on the subse0uent dates fixed for the same, though there is no specific provision for dis .
charging the accused, it would not be proper and 1ustifiable to say that the Court has to wait com.
pulsorily and indefinitely for the appearance of the complainant. +n such a situation the Eagis .
trate may close the complaint, which would not amount to ac0uittal of the accused. Therefore in
this case, the learned Eagistrate, by closing the complaint, has not committed any illegality.
120115 1 ML" 1Crl5 141
S( Na$da 0o.i
+,
Stat! @# I$,.!ctor o3 Polic!, Ch!$$ai
Cod! o3 Crimi$al Proc!dr!, 1473 12 o3 14765, S!ctio$, 621 a$d 622 % Ord!r 3or di,-
.o,al o3 .ro.!rt# .!$di$9 trial i$ c!rtai$ ca,!, a$d at co$cl,io$ o3 trial % P!rmitti$9 r!-
tr$ o3 +!hicl!, a$d ,al! th!r!o3 % Sam! ,hold @! 9!$!ral $orm rath!r tha$ !Dc!.tio$(
2;
:!ldF
This Court is of the firm opinion that return of vehicles and permission for sale thereof
should be the general norm rather than the exception it is today. The clear dictate of the on!ble
Apex Court in this regard is followed more in the breach than in observance. =iven the facilities
of the modern day, there hardly is any scope to think that evidence relating to vehicles cannot be
held in altered form. Causing of photographs and resort to videography, together with recording
such evidence as befits a particular case would well serve the purpose. +n cases where return of
vehicles is sought and the claim therefore is highly contested, resort sale of vehicle and credit of
the proceeds in fixed deposits pending disposal of the case would be to the common good. (one
gain when the mere shell or the remnants of the vehicle are returned to the person entitled
thereto, after completion of the trial. +t would be no surprise to find that several vehicles have
not been so much as claimed after completion of trial, because of the worthless state they have
been reduced to. +t is but natural to expect that a person eventually entitled would rather have the
sale proceeds together with interest, than nothing at all.
120115 1 ML" 1Crl5 147
)mar a$d Oth!r,
+,
Stat! r!.( @# Cor!,t Ra$9! O33ic!r, V!llor! -i,trict
Pro@atio$ o3 O33!$d!r, Act 120 o3 142&5 % Tamil Nad Cor!,t Act 12 o3 1&&25, S!c-
tio$, 3;-A, 3;-E, 61 % S!iIr! o3 .ro.!rt# % Co$+ictio$ co$3irm!d % R!l!a,! o3 ac,!d a,
.ro@atio$ o33!$d!r % No @ar o$ a..lica@ilit# o3 Pro@atio$ o3 O33!$d!r, Act % To @! r!l!a,!d
o$ .ro@atio$ o3 9ood co$dct(
CACTS IN HRIECF
Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence by the ?ast Track Court though the
sei5ed property were not produced before the Court, the Criminal revision has been filed by the
accused.
L'ERBF
6hether the accused convicted under the Tamil (adu ?orest Act can be released by the
igh Court under /robation of 4ffenders ActA
:!ldF
The petitioners being the first time offenders and the petitioners had to face the protracted
criminal proceedings for more than $' years, this Court feels that it is not necessary to send the
petitioners to 1ail. As this Court does not find any provision under the Tamil (adu ?orest Act,
barring the applicability of the probation of offenders Act, the petitioners could be released on
probation of offenders Act.
2$
120115 1 ML" 1Crl5 334
)( Mr9a,am#
+,
I$,.!ctor o3 Cactori!,, Vill.ram
Cod! o3 Crimi$al Proc!dr!, 1473 1 2 o3 14765, S!ctio$ 314 % Cactori!, Act 1 ;3 o3
146&5, S!ctio$, 102, 2 1115 % Violatio$ o3 Cactor# Rl!, % Additio$ o3 .!titio$!r a, acc,!d %
Pr!+io, Sa$ctio$ $ot $!c!,,ar# to ta/! co9$iIa$c!(
CACTRS IN HRIECF
Aggrieved by the order of the Eagistrate in allowing the application filed by the prosecu.
tion for adding the petitioner as an accused, criminal revision petition was filed.
L'ERBF
6hether a person under the category of occupier of a factory could be added as an ac.
cused in the absence of sanction to prosecuteA
:!ldF
A /lain reading of 3ection $;' 7$8 of the Act shows, if an +nspector files the complaint,
no previous sanction is necessary wherein if the complaint is filed by any other person, previous
sanction is necessary. ,ven if it is to be held that previous sanction is necessary for the Court to
take cogni5ance of any offence under the Act, as already sanction has been obtained in this case,
no further sanction is necessary while proceeding against another accused in the same case.
<nder 3ection $% of the /revention of Corruption Act, sanction has to be obtained to pro.
secute a public servant wherein under the ?actories Act, as per 3ection $;', previous sanction
has to be obtained for taking cogni5ance of the offence under the Act. As per 3ection $% of the
/revention of Corruption Act, to prosecute against a public servant sanction is necessary for tak.
ing cogni5ance of the offence as well as to proceed against the person. 4nly in the said circum.
stance, the on!ble 3upreme Court has held that existence of a sanction is sine 0ua non for taking
cogni5ance of the offence 0ua that person. Therefore, under ?actories Act to proceed against the
revision petitioner as per 3ection against the revision petitioner as per 3ection 2$% of Cr./.C., no
sanction is necessary.
120115 1 ML" 1Crl5 3&2
Martha#!! W8o( V!!mara,
+,
Stat!, r!.( @# I$,.!ctor o3 Polic!, Oratha$ad Polic! Statio$, Tha$Aa+r
I$dia$ P!$al Cod! 162 o3 1&;05, S!ctio$ 302 % I$dia$ E+id!$c! Act 1 1 o3 1&725, S!c-
tio$ 32 % -#i$9 d!claratio$ % 3 d#i$9 d!claratio$, i$co$,i,t!$t *ith o$! a$oth!r % "dicial
Ma9i,trat! ,ati,3i!d, +ictim i$ 3it ,tat! o3 mi$d at tim! o3 9i+i$9 d#i$9 d!claratio$ % -#i$9
d!claratio$ r!cord!d @# "dicial Ma9i,trat!, tr!, 9!$i$!, i$,.ir!, co$3id!$c! o3 Cort -
Trial "d9! ri9ht i$ acti$9 .o$ ,am! a$d 3i$di$9 acc,!d 9ilt#(
22
CACTS IN HRIECF
A$ and A2 were charged under 3ection 2;2, +/C, for having committed the murder of the
victim, A2!s wife, by setting her on fire. A$ who was charged under 3ection 2;2, read with 3ec.
tion 2#, +/C, was found not guilty and ac0uitted. A$ was imposed life sentence and a fine of
"s.';;J.. The present appeal has been preferred by A$, the alleged paramour of A 2, against the
above said 1udgment and order of the sessions Court.
L'ERIESF
$. 6hen there were 2 dying declarations, inconsistent with one another, should they be
re1ected in totoA
2. 6hen the victim died % days after the occurrence, of complications arising from ex.
tensive burn in1uries, would the act of the accused who set her on fire, attract the pen.
al provision under 3ection 2;2, +/CA
:!ldK
+t is true that ,xhibit /.9 has been recorded by the Budicial Eagistrate after obtaining a
certificate from the doctor that the victim was in a fit state of mind to give declaration. The doc.
tor has also certified at the end of the statement as to the state of mind of the patient at the time of
her giving the declaration. (ow it is well settled principle of law that in such cases even the
presence of doctors or their certificate in not necessary if the Eagistrate is satisfied that
beforeJduring the time of recording the declaration, the victim was in a fit state of mind and ori .
ented and it would satisfy the re0uirement of law. +n the instant case, -octor ,langovan was
present all along and he has certified about the fitness and state of mind of the victim before re.
cording the declaration and after the recording of the declaration was over and the same is found
in ,xhibit /.9 and the Budicial Eagistrate has also deposed before the Court to that effect. (o
0uestion or suggestion was made to the Eagistrate denying that part of the evidence and hence,
the evidence has got to be accepted. 3o long as ,xhibit /.9 is true, genuine and inspires the con.
fidence of the Court, the Court has to act upon the same. Therefore, the trial Budge was perfectly
right in acting upon ,xhibit /.9 and recording a finding that accused (o. $ was guilty.
120115 1 ML" 1Crl5 670
A( Lo9a$atha$ a$d Oth!r,
+,
Stat! r!.( @#, I$,.!ctor o3 Polic! 1LGO5, S-11, Tam@aram Polic! Statio$
Cod! o3 Crimi$al Proc!dr!, 1473 12 o3 14765, S!ctio$ 162165 % Po,,!,,io$ o3
.r!mi,!, i$ di,.t! % Oral a$d docm!$tar# !+id!$c! to @! addc!d @# .arti!, % Ma9i,-
trat! to 3ollo* ma$dator# .roc!dr!(
CACTS IN HRIECF
The petitionerJtenant seeks a direction to the first respondent to ensure the removal of
locks put on the ground and first floor of the premises in dispute and restore possession of the
premises to the tenant, pursuant to the order passed by the "evenue -ivisional 4fficer confirm.
ing the tenancy of the petitioner.
22
L'ERBF
6hether the 0uestion of possession can be decided by the Eagistrate merely on the basis
of affidavits filed before himA
:!ldF
+n the instant case, the order of the "-4 does not meet the re0uirements informed in the
decision referred to herein above and accordingly would have to be set aside. owever, the
would not be the end of the matter. @oth the petitioner as also his father had preferred com.
plaints before the $
st
respondent who has recorded the same in the Community 3ervice "egister
on the same date under numbers $$9 and $2; of 2;;9 respectively, 6hile the complaint of the
petitioner is brief, that of his father is more detailed and the allegations therein, if true, would
make out commission of cogni5able offences. As the dispute between the parties has been dealt
with under 3ection $#' Cr./.C., there has been no investigation whatsoever regards the occur.
rence. +n the opinion of this Court, an investigation is called for upon the complaint of the peti .
tioner!s father dated 22.'.2;;9. As the petitioner apprehends unfair treatment at the hands of the
$
st
respondent and given the nature of the case and such respondents conduct therein, this Court
considers it appropriate that the investigation be conducted by a senior police official.
120115 1 ML" 1Crl5 6&0
Moo/aiah
+,
)a$$i/a a$d Oth!r,
I$dia$ P!$al Cod! 162 o3 1&;05, S!ctio$ 30; % Cod! o3 Crimi$al Proc!dr!, 1473 12
o3 14765, S!ctio$, 347 a$d 601 % A@!tm!$t o3 ,icid! % Sicid! @# ,!l3 immolatio$ % R!lia@-
ilit# o3 d#i$9 d!claratio$ % Mai$tai$a@ilit# o3 r!+i,io$ a9ai$,t acEittal % Sco.! o3(
CACTS IN HRIECF
Criminal "evision /etition has been filed by the father of the deceased to 0uash and set
aside the 1udgment of the ?ast Track Court ac0uitting the accused of all charges and to restore the
1udgment of conviction of the accused passed by the trial Court.
L'ERBF
$. 6hether dying declaration can be treated as a corroborative piece of evidence in the
conviction of an accusedA
2. 6hether the igh Court is entitled in revision to set aside an ac0uittal and order a re.
trial when the appeal is preferred by a private personA
:!ldF
A person who records dying declaration must satisfy himself with the declarant!s mental
and physical fitness and when it is shown that he is a disinterested person, then there is no imped.
iment for the Court to place reliance upon the evidence emerging from dying declaration. The
3upreme Court has also observed that for non.examining the doctor, the dying declaration recor.
ded by the ,xecutive Eagistrate and the declaration orally made need not be doubted. ence,
2#
even if the doctor was not examined as to his certificate regarding physical and mental fitness to
the in1ured, it would not in any way hamper the Court!s decision to accept such evidence.
2011- 1-L(W( 1Crl(5 206
N( Padma$a@ha$
+,
Stat! r!.( @# Th! I$,.!ctor o3 Polic!, All Wom!$ Polic! Statio$
I(P(C(, S!ctio$ 64&-A 8S!ctio$ i, $ot co$3i$!d to cr!lt# a$d hara,,m!$t d!ma$di$9
do*r# % I3 th! act all!9!d 3all, $d!r ED.la$atio$ 1@5, th!$ o$l#, th! act ,hold @! *ith th!
i$t!$tio$ o3 !Dtracti$9 do*r# % I3 it 3all, $d!r ED.la$atio$ 1a5, it $!!d to @! *ith th! o@A!ct
o3 9!tti$9 a$# do*r# or +ala@l! ,!crit# % Th!r!3or!, th! m!r! 3act that a$ acc,!d i, ac-
Eitt!d o3 th! o33!$c! $d!r S!ctio$ 6 o3 th! -o*r# Prohi@itio$ Act, ,hall $ot @! !$o9h to
com! to th! co$cl,io$ that h! cold $ot ha+! committ!d a$ o33!$c! .$i,ha@l! $d!r S!c-
tio$ 64&-A !D.la$atio$ 1a5 % No d!3!ct or i$3irmit# i$ th! co$crr!$t 3i$di$9, o3 th! Cort,
@!lo* holdi$9 th! .!titio$!r 9ilt# o3 th! o33!$c! $d!r S!ctio$ 6&4-A IPC a$d h!$c!, $o i$-
t!r3!r!$c! *ith th! ,am! i, *arra$t!d % R!+i,io$ di,mi,,!d(
:!ldF
(o case has been made out be the petitioner for interference with the concurrent findings
of the Courts below holding the petitioner guilty of the offence under 3ection #%9.A +/C. The
reasons are furnished in the succeeding paragraphs.
Clear allegations have been made against the petitioner in the said complaint narrating
the ways and means by which /6$ was treated with cruelty 7both mental and physicial8 and har.
assment.
2011- 1-L(W( 1Crl(5 227
Pal! :or,! -!,i9$,, No(20, Loc,t Str!!t, Sit! 102, -a$+!r,, E,,!D Co$t#,
Ma,,ach,!tt, R!.r!,!$t!d @# it, Pr!,id!$t M,( )ar!$ Cha$,/# a$d oth!r,
+,
NataraAa$ Rath$am No(3, Par/*a# -ri+!, Ro,!l#$ :!i9ht,, N!* Bor/(
R!,.o$d!$t i$ all Crl(O(P,(
N!9otia@l! I$,trm!$t, Act 11&&15, S!ctio$ 13& a$d S!ctio$ 128-!3i$itio$ o3 <Cor-
!i9$ I$,trm!$t=8-i,ho$or o3 ch!E! i,,!d @# a No$-R!,id!$t I$dia$ o$ a Cor!i9$ Ha$/,
a$d .r!,!$t!d i$ Ch!$$ai, Crimi$al P(C(, S!ctio$, 177, 6&2(
Com.lai$t *a, laid @# th! r!,.o$d!$t, a No$-R!,id!$t I$dia$ li+i$9 i$ th! '$it!d
Stat!, o3 Am!rica @!3or! th! 4
th
M!tro.olita$ Ma9i,trat!, Ch!$$ai i$ r!,.!ct o3 ch!E!,
di,ho$or!d *hich *a, .r!,!$t!d 3or coll!ctio$ thro9h th! @a$/!r o3 th! r!,.o$d!$t,
$am!l# M8,( ICICI Ha$/ Limit!d, A$$a$a9ar, Ch!$$ai % A+!rm!$t, *!r! mad! to th! !3-
3!ct that th! ,aid ch!E!, dra*$ o$ -a$+!r, Sa+i$9, Ha$/, O$! Co$a$t Str!!t, -a$+!r,,
MA 01423, 'SA, *!r! i,,!d i$ 3a+or o3 th! r!,.o$d!$t h!r!i$8com.lai$a$t i$ di,char9!
o3 a lia@ilit# i$ .art o3 th! .!titio$!r, h!r!i$ to*ard, th! r!,.o$d!$t h!r!i$8com.lai$a$t %
Ma9i,trat! ha, ord!r!d i,,a$c! o3 ,mmo$, to th! .!titio$!r,8acc,!d, .r,a$t to *hich
,mmo$, *!r! ,!r+!d o$ th!m i$ th! '$it!d Stat!, o3 Am!rica % Ori9i$al P!titio$
2'
1Crl(O(P(5 i$+o/!d th! i$h!r!$ .o*!r, o3 th! :i9h Cort $d!r S!ctio$ 6&2 Cr(P(C(, 3or
Ea,hi$9 all th! thr!! com.lai$t,(
:!ldF
It i, a$ admitt!d 3act that th! 3ir,t .!titio$!r i, a com.a$# i$cor.orat!d a$d r!-
9i,t!r!d i$ th! '$it!d Stat!, o3 Am!rica a$d th! ,!co$d .!titio$!r i, th! Pr!,id!$t o3 th!
,aid com.a$# a$d i, a r!,id!$t o3 th! '$it!d Stat!, o3 Am!rica % It i, $o@od#?, ca,! that
!ith!r th! 3ir,t .!titio$!r or th! ,!co$d .!titio$!r i, a r!,id!$t o3 I$dia % It i, al,o $ot th!
ca,! o3 th! r!,.o$d!$t that th! .!titio$!r, ar! doi$9 @,i$!,, or carr#i$9 o$ @,i$!,, i$ I$-
dia % Ori9i$al co$tract 9i+i$9 ri,! to th! lia@ilit# o3 th! .!titio$!r, to ma/! .a#m!$t to th!
r!,.o$d!$t aro,! at N!* Bor/, '$it!d Stat!, o3 Am!rica % It i, $ot th! ca,! o3 th! r!,.o$d-
!$t that th! ch!E!,, tho9h .a#a@l! at -a$+!r,, Ma,,ach,!tt,, '$it!d Stat!, o3 Am!rica,
*!r! i,,!d at Ch!$$ai *ithi$ th! Ari,dictio$ o3 th! cort @!lo* to ma/! a co$t!$tio$ that
th! .lac! o3 dra*al o3 th! ch!E! *ill 9i+! Ari,dictio$ to th! cort @!lo* to !$t!rtai$ th!
com.lai$t,(
Ch!E! mad!8dra*$ i$ a 3or!i9$ co$tr# o$ a dra*!! @a$/ 3$ctio$i$9 i$ th! 3or-
!i9$ co$tr# a$d mad! .a#a@l! th!r!i$ ,hall @! a 3or!i9$ i$,trm!$t a$d th! la* o3 th!
co$tr# *h!r!i$ th! ch!E! *a, dra*$ or mad! .a#a@l! ,hall @! th! la* 9o+!r$i$9 th!
ri9ht, a$d lia@iliti!, o3 th! .arti!, a$d th! di,ho$or o3 th! ch!E! % A, ,ch th! .a#!! ca$-
$ot ,!l!ct a co$tr# a$d .r!,!$t it tho9h a @a$/ th!r!i$ 3or coll!ctio$ to co$3!r Ari,dic-
tio$ o$ a cort 3$ctio$i$9 th!r!i$ % I3 th! .a#!! i, 9i+!$ ,ch a ri9ht to .roc!!d crimi$all#
a9ai$,t th! dra*!r @# ,!l!cti$9 th! Ari,dictio$, th! ,am! *ill !$cora9! 3orm ,ho..i$9(
2011- 1-L(W( 1Crl(5 261
Chitti alia, Chitti@a@
+,
Th! Stat! R!.r!,!$t!d @# it, I$,.!ctor o3 Polic!, 0mmidi.oo$di Polic! Statio$
I(P(C(, S!ctio$, 342, 347, r(*(36, Practic!, Crami$9 o3 char9!, E+id!$c! Act, S!ctio$,
116, 278R!co+!r# o3 ro@@!d .ro.!rti!, 3rom th! acc,!d *ithi$ 3!* hor, o3 occrr!$c!,
Pr!,m.tio$, A..lica@ilit#(
R!+i,io$ aro,! a9ai$,t Ad9m!$t o3 S!,,io$, "d9! .a,,!d i$ a..!al, co$+icti$9 .!ti-
tio$!r-third acc,!d $d!r S!ctio$ 342 r8* 36 IPC a$d co$3irmi$9 th! ,!$t!$c! al,o, @t
acEitti$9 th! acc,!d $d!r S!ctio$ 347 r8* 36 IPC % -i,ti$ctio$ @!t*!!$ th! o33!$c!, i$
th!,! S!ctio$, .oi$t!d ot(
S!ctio$ 347 IPC i, o$l# a rid!r to S!ctio$, 342 IPC a$d 342 IPC % >P$i,hm!$t 3or
ro@@!r#? a$d >.$i,hm!$t 3or dacoit#? r!,.!cti+!l#, $o ,@,ta$ti+! char9! ca$ @! 3ram!d
$d!r S!ctio$ 347 IPCK Th! ,@,ta$ti+! char9!, ca$ @! o$l# $d!r S!ctio$ 342 IPC or 342
IPC a$d i$ ca,!, *h!r! th! d!adl# *!a.o$ i, ,!d(
Tho9h th! .!titio$!r o9ht to ha+! @!!$ ,!$t!$c!d $ot l!,, tha$ ,!+!$ #!ar,, a, h!
had ,!d /$i3! *hil! committi$9 ro@@!r#, th! a..!llat! Cort ha+i$9 ,!t a,id! th! ,!$t!$c!
o3 ,!+!$ #!ar,, thi, Cort do!, $ot *a$t to 3rth!r r!dc! th! ,!$t!$c! o3 im.ri,o$m!$t im-
.o,!d o$ th! .!titio$!r % R!+i,io$ di,mi,,!d(
Practic!, Crami$9 o3 char9! % S!! I(P(C(, S!ctio$, 342, 347, r(*(36(
2&
E+id!$c! Act, S!ctio$, 116, 278R!co+!r# o3 ro@@!d .ro.!rti!, 3rom th! acc,!d
*ithi$ 3!* hor, o3 occrr!$c!, Pr!,m.tio$, A..lica@ilit# % S!!( I(P(C(, S!ctio$, 342, 347,
r(*( 36, Practic!, Crami$9 o3 char9!(
:!ldF
Though in the test identification parade, it was only /.6.$ who had identified the peti.
tionerJthird accused, as it was admitted by /.6s.$ to 2 that they had seen the accused in the early
morning in the police station, to some extent, it is to be accepted that test identification parade
losses its value. @ut at the same time, it does not exclude the involvement of the accused in the
occurrence.
As the robbed properties have been recovered from the accused within a few hours from
the time of occurrence, it is very clinching material to draw the presumption under 3ection $$# of
the +ndian ,vidence Act and to conclude that the accused have committed the offence of robbery,
especially in the absence of any explanation from the accused for the possession of the robbed
properties. ence the conviction on the petitioner under 3ection 2%2 rJw 2# +/C is confirmed.
The lower appellate Court had ac0uitted the petitioner from the offence under 3ection
2%: rJw 2# +/C observing that no separate conviction could be made under 3ection 2%: rJw 2#
+/C, and no separate charge ought to have been framed under 3ection 2%: +/C.
JJJJJ
2: