Section 310 Cr.P.C. - local inspection- Accused under charges of sec.147,148,302/r/w 149 of I.P.C. - filed application for Local Inspection - Trial court dismissed - Their Lordships held that the local inspection either suo motu or on the application of the parties, the trial Court must be convinced itself that such a local inspection of the scene of offence is necessary to appreciate the evidence properly. When the Court did not feel such necessity, neither the parties nor the higher courts can either commend or command the trial Court to invariably conduct a local inspection. - dismissed the Criminal Petition - 2015Telangana &A.P. msklawreports


 Petitioners/accused who are facing trial for the charges under Sections
147, 148, 302, 307 r/w 149 IPC having failed to convince the trial Court to
make a local inspection under Section 310 Cr.P.C., filed the instant Criminal
Petition to set aside the impugned order dated 16.02.2015 in Crl.M.P.No.374
of 2014 in S.C.No.64 of 2010 and direct the learned Special Sessions Judge-
cum-X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam to
make a local inspection of the scene of offence in S.C.No.64 of 2010.

Section 310 Cr.P.C. deals with local inspection. It reads thus:
"310. Local Inspection. -
(1) Any Judge or Magistrate may, at any stage of any
inquiry, trial or other proceedings, after due notice to the parties, visit and
inspect any place in which an offence is alleged to have been committed, or any other
place which it is in his opinion necessary to view for the purpose of properly
appreciating the evidence given in such inquiry of trial, and shall without unnecessary delay
record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection.
(2) Such memorandum shall form part of the record of the case and if the
prosecutor, complainant or accused or any other party to the case, so desires, a
copy of the memorandum shall be furnished to him free of cost."
A perusal of above section shows that it contains three important aspects.
(i) that it must be necessary to appreciate the evidence given;
(ii) that due notice of inspection should be given to the parties;
(iii) that a memorandum of facts observed should be recorded without
unnecessary delay.
So, predominantly the purpose for local inspection by the trial Court is to
properly appreciate the evidence given in the case.  In other words, before
embarking upon the local inspection either suo motu or on the application of
the parties, the trial Court must be convinced itself that such a local
inspection of the scene of offence is necessary to appreciate the evidence
properly.
When the Court did not feel such necessity, neither the parties nor
the higher courts can either commend or command the trial Court to
invariably conduct a local inspection.
That is not the purport of Section 310
Cr.P.C.
 My view is fortified from the decision rendered by Honourable High
Court of Bombay in the case of Dayanand Tukaram Raut and others
wherein it was held thus:

In my view the aforesaid provision cannot be invoked when the Court has not
felt the necessity or desirability of having such local inspection which can be
done
only for the purpose of appreciating the evidence given before the Court. There
is no
duty cast on the Court to have local inspection simply because the prosecuting
agency or one of the parties to the litigation makes an application to the Court
and,
therefore, there is no question of directing the lower Court to have local
inspection
in respect of the property which is the subject-matter of the criminal trial.
This is not
to say that the trial Court should have no local inspection as and when it is
felt
necessary or desirable by the Court itself.
So, In view of this precedential jurisprudence on the matter in issue the order
of the trial Court refusing to make a local inspection cannot be found fault
with.
 Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.-2015Telangana &A.P. msklawreports

Popular posts from this blog

Court fee - Sec.34 of A.P.C.F & S.V.Act - partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it did not insist on payment of ad-valorem Court-fee, on such items. It, however, took a different view, as regards the movable properties. Neither from the plaint, nor from the endorsement made by the trial Court, it is found that there is any distinction, as to the nature of rights claimed, in respect of Plaint-A Schedule properties, on the one hand, and Plaint-B schedule properties, on the other hand. In fact, the nature and incidence of possession, of an immovable property, gives rise to, relatively greater consequences of law, than the possession of an item of movable property. The possession of an item of immovable property can be said to be more assertive, firm and lasting, than the one, of movable property. The endorsement made by the trial Court cannot be sustained, either on law, or on facts. 2015 A.P.(2006)MSKLAWREPORTS

partition of Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties, in the manner pleaded by her, and for grant of future profits. Plaint-A Schedule comprised of, four items of immovable properties, and Plaint-B Schedule comprised of, nine items of jewellery. Pleading that the parties are in joint possession of the said properties, the petitioner paid Court-fee of Rs. 200/- under Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Court returned the plaint, through its order dated 23-6-2006, directing the petitioner herein, to pay Court fee on movable properties, on her shares, as per the Act, within the time stipulated by it.= In the instant case, the petitioner asserted that, herself and the respondents are in joint possession of the Plaints-A and B-Schedule properties. In a way, the trial Court was satisfied, that the immovable properties mentioned in Plaint-A schedule are in joint possession, and in that view of the matter, it
Read more

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Law  :- Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. Sub  :- Quash the criminal proceedings Offence  :-Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 Summary : -  The investigation revealed that clandestinely question paper Part-B has been removed from the exam hall and it was passed on to Accused No.1 for eventually facilitating in malpractice. However, the police after investigation, filed the charge-sheet.   The petitioner (A-2) along with A-1 is sought to be proceeded against under Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 (Act for short).     Section 5 of the Act reads as under: Prevention of leakage by person entrusted with examination works: No person who is entrusted with any work pertaining to a public examination shall, except where he is permitted by virtue of his duties so to do, directly or indirectly divulge or cause to be divulged or make known to any o
Read more

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS

Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. "Order 38, Rule 7 C.P.C. provides that the attachment under Order 38, Rule 5 shall be made in the manner provided for the attachment of property in execution of a decree. It is trite, the attachment envisaged under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC is an attachment before judgment. The restriction found by the learned Single Judge that under Order 38 Rule 5, only the properties of the defendant can be attached and not the properties in the hands of garnishee has no statutory support nor the support of any precedent. The attachment of debts due to the defendant from third party could be attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC.-2015 A.P.(2004) MSKLAWREPORTS
Read more