29 May 2011
Scope of hearing in appeal admitted on limited ground.
The honourable Supreme Court, while hearing an appeal. i.e. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2109 OF 2009 (YOMESHBHAI PRANSHANKAR BHATT VERSUS STATE OF GUJARAT) has declared that, Admission of an appeal on a limited ground cannot restrict the scope of final hearing to the said ground. The honourable Supreme Court has considered the scheme of Supreme Court Rules, 1966 as well as the provisions of article 145 of the Constitution of India. The honourable Supreme Court has also considered the scheme of section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, governing the scope of hearing in second appeals admitted on particular substantial questions of Law, framed at the admission stage.
VAKILSAHEB
28 May 2011
Conversion of acquittal order in conviction - Principles
Conversion of acquittal order in conviction - Principles
While deciding an appeal against the order of acquittal of an accused prosecuted for offence of murder, filed by the STATE OF RAJASTHAN, the honourable Supreme Court of India has stated the principles for conversion of order of acquittal in conviction.
While deciding CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2005 filed by the State of Rajasthan against ISLAM and others, the honourable Supreme Court has noted the settled judicial principle that, when the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 136, it definitely exercises a discretionary jurisdiction but such discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. If the consideration by the High Court is misconceived and perverse there is nothing in law which prevents the Supreme Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 against an order of acquittal when such acquittal cannot be sustained at all, in view of the evidence on record.
The honourable Supreme Court has further observed that, the golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent.
The Honourable Supreme Court has further observed, the principle to be followed by appellate court considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so.
The Honourable Supreme Court proceeded to state the grounds when an order of acquittal can be interfered to convict the accused.
a. The finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the
appraisal of evidence. (State of U.P. Vs. Sahai, AIR 1981
SC 1442 at paras 19-21)
b. The finding is perverse. (State of MP Vs. Bachhudas,
(2007) 9 SCC 135 at para 10 and State of Punjab Vs. Parveen
Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769 at para 9)
c. The order suffers from substantial errors of law and
fact (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Dharamvir 1997(4) SCC 496 at para 5)
d. The order is based on misconception of law or erroneous
appreciation of evidence (State of UP Vs. Abdul 1997(10)
SCC 135; State of UP Vs. Premi 2003(9) SCC 12 at para 15)
e. High Court has adopted an erroneous approach resulting
in miscarriage of justice (State of TN Vs. Suresh 1998(2)
SCC 372 at paras 31 and 32; State of MP Vs. Paltan Mallah
2005(3) SCC 169 at para 8)
f. Acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds (Arunachalam
Vs. Sadhanatham 1979(2) SCC 297 at para 4
g. High Court has completely misdirected itself in
reversing the order of conviction by the Trial Court
(Gaurishanker Sharma Vs. State of UP, AIR 1990 SC 709)
h. The judgment is tainted with serious legal infirmities
(State of Maharashtra Vs. Pimple, AIR 1984 SC 63 at para
75)
The honourable Supreme Court has noted that, while reversing an acquittal, this Court keeps in mind that presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by an order of acquittal and if the view of the High Court is reasonable and founded on materials on record, the Supreme Court should not interfere. However, if the Supreme Court, on reassessment of evidence, reaches to an opinion that, the acquittal is not based on a reasonable view, then it may review the entire material and there will be no limitation on it’s jurisdiction under Article 136 to come to a just decision quashing the acquittal. The honourable Supreme Court, deciding the appeal has noted the precedents reported in 1985(4) SCC 476 at para 45; 1996(7) SCC 471 at para 4).
VAKILSAHEB
While deciding an appeal against the order of acquittal of an accused prosecuted for offence of murder, filed by the STATE OF RAJASTHAN, the honourable Supreme Court of India has stated the principles for conversion of order of acquittal in conviction.
While deciding CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1318 OF 2005 filed by the State of Rajasthan against ISLAM and others, the honourable Supreme Court has noted the settled judicial principle that, when the Supreme Court exercises jurisdiction under Article 136, it definitely exercises a discretionary jurisdiction but such discretionary jurisdiction has to be exercised in order to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice. If the consideration by the High Court is misconceived and perverse there is nothing in law which prevents the Supreme Court from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 136 against an order of acquittal when such acquittal cannot be sustained at all, in view of the evidence on record.
The honourable Supreme Court has further observed that, the golden thread which runs through the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from a conviction of an innocent.
The Honourable Supreme Court has further observed, the principle to be followed by appellate court considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons to do so.
The Honourable Supreme Court proceeded to state the grounds when an order of acquittal can be interfered to convict the accused.
a. The finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the
appraisal of evidence. (State of U.P. Vs. Sahai, AIR 1981
SC 1442 at paras 19-21)
b. The finding is perverse. (State of MP Vs. Bachhudas,
(2007) 9 SCC 135 at para 10 and State of Punjab Vs. Parveen
Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769 at para 9)
c. The order suffers from substantial errors of law and
fact (Rajesh Kumar Vs. Dharamvir 1997(4) SCC 496 at para 5)
d. The order is based on misconception of law or erroneous
appreciation of evidence (State of UP Vs. Abdul 1997(10)
SCC 135; State of UP Vs. Premi 2003(9) SCC 12 at para 15)
e. High Court has adopted an erroneous approach resulting
in miscarriage of justice (State of TN Vs. Suresh 1998(2)
SCC 372 at paras 31 and 32; State of MP Vs. Paltan Mallah
2005(3) SCC 169 at para 8)
f. Acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds (Arunachalam
Vs. Sadhanatham 1979(2) SCC 297 at para 4
g. High Court has completely misdirected itself in
reversing the order of conviction by the Trial Court
(Gaurishanker Sharma Vs. State of UP, AIR 1990 SC 709)
h. The judgment is tainted with serious legal infirmities
(State of Maharashtra Vs. Pimple, AIR 1984 SC 63 at para
75)
The honourable Supreme Court has noted that, while reversing an acquittal, this Court keeps in mind that presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified by an order of acquittal and if the view of the High Court is reasonable and founded on materials on record, the Supreme Court should not interfere. However, if the Supreme Court, on reassessment of evidence, reaches to an opinion that, the acquittal is not based on a reasonable view, then it may review the entire material and there will be no limitation on it’s jurisdiction under Article 136 to come to a just decision quashing the acquittal. The honourable Supreme Court, deciding the appeal has noted the precedents reported in 1985(4) SCC 476 at para 45; 1996(7) SCC 471 at para 4).
VAKILSAHEB
26 May 2011
Honourable Supremem Court cancelled allotment of land to Sourabh Ganguli.
Honourable Supremem Court has cancelled allotment of land to Sourabh Ganguli.
The honourable Supreme Court has observed as under,
53. In the instant case, the impugned allotment of a different and bigger plot by the government in
favour of the allottee without any advertisement, when initially advertisement was resorted to, and then it was given up and everything was rushed through in hot haste, is unreasonable and arbitrary, and the High Court was wrong in upholding the same.
54. Before I conclude, I make it clear that I am aware that the allottee is a cricketer of great
repute and has led this country to victory in many tournaments, both in India and abroad. I have
watched him on the television on many occasions and was delighted to see his glorious cover drives and effortlessly lofted shots over the fence. But as a Judge, I have different duties to discharge. Here I must be objective and eschew my likes and dislikes and render justice to a cause which has come before the Court.
55. For the reasons aforesaid,the order of allotment of plot no. CA-222, Sector-V, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar),Kolkata made in favour of Mr.Sourav Ganguly,the allottee,is quashed. In consequence thereof, the lease deed dated 1.4.09, pursuant to such allotment stands quashed. The allottee must, within two weeks from date, handover the peaceful and vacant possession of plot No. CA-222 measuring 63.04 Kathas in Sector-V, Salt Lake City (Bidhannagar), Kolkata to the concerned department of the State Government. Within two weeks thereafter the State Government must refund to the allottee, by a Cheque, the entire money paid by him for such allotment.
VAKILSAHEB
The honourable Supreme Court has observed as under,
53. In the instant case, the impugned allotment of a different and bigger plot by the government in
favour of the allottee without any advertisement, when initially advertisement was resorted to, and then it was given up and everything was rushed through in hot haste, is unreasonable and arbitrary, and the High Court was wrong in upholding the same.
54. Before I conclude, I make it clear that I am aware that the allottee is a cricketer of great
repute and has led this country to victory in many tournaments, both in India and abroad. I have
watched him on the television on many occasions and was delighted to see his glorious cover drives and effortlessly lofted shots over the fence. But as a Judge, I have different duties to discharge. Here I must be objective and eschew my likes and dislikes and render justice to a cause which has come before the Court.
55. For the reasons aforesaid,the order of allotment of plot no. CA-222, Sector-V, Salt Lake (Bidhannagar),Kolkata made in favour of Mr.Sourav Ganguly,the allottee,is quashed. In consequence thereof, the lease deed dated 1.4.09, pursuant to such allotment stands quashed. The allottee must, within two weeks from date, handover the peaceful and vacant possession of plot No. CA-222 measuring 63.04 Kathas in Sector-V, Salt Lake City (Bidhannagar), Kolkata to the concerned department of the State Government. Within two weeks thereafter the State Government must refund to the allottee, by a Cheque, the entire money paid by him for such allotment.
VAKILSAHEB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)