Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.29 seconds)Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 337 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ayodhya Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 1972
In Ayodhya Singh v. State, 1973 Cri LJ 768 this Court held that the provisions of Section 337(3) are mandatory and unless the approver is already on bail he must be detained in custody till the termination of the trial and the Court has no power to release him on bail on his becoming an approver. Justice Modi, who delivered this judgment was also not called upon to consider Section 482, Cr.P.C., but he also observed at the end of the trial that:
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979
Hussainara Khatoon's case, which has been reported in AIR 1979 SC 1377 : (1979 Cri LJ 1052) is a landmark in judicial history of this country. Cases of several undertrial prisoners, who are languishing in jail for years together, were considered. Some of them were such where the undertrial prisoners had remained in jail without trial for periods which are longer than the maximum term for which they would have been convicted. They were directed to be released even without obtaining a bail bond. His Lordship Mr. Justice Bhagwati speaking for the Court, said :
Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal And Anr on 8 January, 1981
10. Mr. Khan has also relied on the observations in Smt. Sooraj Devi v. Pyare Lal, (1981) 1 SCC 500 : (1981 Cri LJ 296), where also their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that a clerical or arithmetical error is an error occasioned by an accidental slip or omission of the Court. It represents that which the Court never intended to say. It is an error apparent on the face of the record and does not depend for its discovery on argument or disputation. An arithmetical error is a mistake of calculation, and a clerical error is a mistake in writing or typing, and then their Lordships held :
Emperor vs Kothia Navalya Bhil on 30 August, 1906
"We would point out, however, that there is no occasion for revision of the order. The tender of a pardon does not prevent the prosecution from proceeding against an approver as an accused person. If the prosecution is so revived it is for the approver to plead the pardon as a defence; see Emperor v. Kothia (1906) ILR 30 Bom 611 : (1906-4 Cri LJ 346) and Emperor v. Sabar Akunjj, (1915) ILR 42 Cal 756 : (1915-16 Cri LJ 120). It is open to the prosecution to proceed against the approver Dagdoo on the ground that he has not performed the condition of the pardon in that he gave false evidence under Section 512, Criminal Procedure Code.
Sunil Batra Etc vs Delhi Administration And Ors. Etc on 30 August, 1978
19. A perusal of the aforesaid cases coupled with that of many other cases, like that of Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration: 1980 Cri LJ 1099 : (AIR 1980 SC 1579), and yet another case of Hussainara Khatoon reported in AIR 1979 SC 1360 : (1979 Cri LJ 1036), we have no hesitation in holding that detention of a person even by due process of law has to be reasonable, fair and just and if it is not so, it will amount to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution. Reasonable expeditious trial is warranted by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and in case this is not done and an approver is detained for a period which is longer than what can be considered to be reasonable in the circumstances of each case, this Court has always power to declare his detention either illegal or enlarge him to bail while exercising its inherent powers. Section 482. Cr.P.C, gives wide power to this Court in three circumstances. Firstly, where the jurisdiction is invoked to give effect to an order of the Court. Secondly if there is an abuse of the process of the Court and thirdly, in order to secure the ends of justice. There may be occasions where a case of approver may fall within latter two categories. For example in a case where there are large number of witnesses a long period is taken in trial where irregularities and illegalities have been committed by the Court and a re-trial is ordered and while doing so, the accused persons are released on bail, the release of the approver will be occasioned for securing the ends of justice. Similarly, there may be cases that there may be an abuse of the process of the Court and the accused might be trying to delay the proceedings by absconding one after another, the approver may approach this Court for seeking indulgence. But this too will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Broadly, the parameters may be given but no hard and fast rule can be laid down. For instance, an approver, who has already been examined and has supported the prosecution version, and has also not violated the terms of pardon coupled with the fact that no early end of the trial is visible, then he may be released by invoking the powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Section 482, Cr.P.C. gives only power to the High Court. Sessions Judge cannot invoke the provisions of the same. High Court therefore in suitable cases can examine the expediency of the release of an approver. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that since there is a specific bar under Section 306(4)(b), Cr.P.C., Section 482, Cr.P.C., should nut be made applicable. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have said in limes without number, that there is nothing in the Code to fetter the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Even if there is a bar in different provisions for the three purposes mentioned in Section 482, Cr.P.C., and one glaring example quoted is that though Section 397 gives a bar for interference with interlocutory orders yet Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been made applicable in exceptional cases. Second revision by the same petitioner is barred yet this Court in exceptional cases invokes the provisions of Section 482, Cr.P.C. Therefore. Section 482, Cr.P.C. gives ample power to this Court. However, in exceptional cases to enlarge the approver on bail, we answer the question that according to Section 306(4)(b), Cr.P.C. the approver should be detained in custody till the termination of trial, if he is not already on bail, at the same time, in exceptional and reasonable cases the High Court has power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., to enlarge him on bail or in case there are circumstances to suggest that his detention had been so much prolonged, which would otherwise outlive the period of sentence, if convicted, his detention can be declared to be illegal, as violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.