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

Writ - praying to declare that explanation to Section 6 of the amendment Act of 39 of 2005, Explanation: for the purpose of this Section partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908) or partition effected by a decree of a court as unconstitutional and the same is liable to be struck down and etc; -2015 KAR(2015) msklawreports

"(i) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 is prospective or retrospective in operation? (ii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born prior to 17.6.1956? (iii) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies to daughters born after 17.6.1956 and prior to 9.9.2005? (iv) Whether  Section 6  of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as amended by the Amendment Act , 2005 applies only to daughters born after 9.9.2005? (v) Whether the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Vaishali Ganorkar is per in curium of Gandori Koteshwaramma and others?"   In addressing an argument that the Explanation to  Section 6  clearly provides that partition means any partition made by execution of a deed duly registered under the  Registration Act , 1908...
Read more

Or.39, rule 7 of C.P.C - Petition for preservation of properties belongs to the petitioner - as the Govt. is going to demolish the building in road widening scheme - Or.39, rule 1 made absolute against the petitioner infavour of the respondent - Trial court allowed the Petition wrongly - their lordships held that In a suit for injunction, though the question of possession as on the date of filing of the suit is most relevant, there may be other ancillary and incidental questions as to the conduct of the parties before the Court. The concept of possession in law should take in its spectrum all rights, liabilities, immunities and claims vis-`-vis the property which is said to be in possession. When the Court recorded a prima facie finding that Gayatri bai is in possession, she was also in law entitled to take advantage of that presumption. Unless the defendant properly pleads and proves at the earliest stage regarding any such movables or immovables attached to the immovable property, no defendant can be heard of saying that his belongings were lying in the disputed property. - 2015 A.P.(2001) MSKLAWREPORTS

<CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - - Or.39 Rr.1 and 2 - - Or.39 R.7 - - Suit for possession - - Interim injuction granted was made absolute - - Later on defendant filed a petition to remove and keep in safe custody certain movables laying in the disputed premises alleging that those belong to him and may get spoiled in case of demolition of the building for road widening - - Lower Court ordered handing over such articles after preparing necessary list to the respondent/defendant.         Scope and ambit  of Or.39 R.7 and when the power thereunder to be exercised - - Laid down. >HELD:         Order 39 Rule 7 CPC empowers the Court to make an order for detention, preservation and inspection of any property which is the subject matter of the suit or as to which any question may arise in the suit.  The submission that the power under Rule 7 can be exercised only in respect of the subject matter is therefore not well founded. The...
Read more

Cancellation of Bail with out completing the investigation by police about threat on defacto complainant , is a premature one - - 2015 TELANGANA & AP.MSKLAWREPORTS

the allegation of defacto complainant is that some unknown persons on behalf of the accused,  even though they were in judicial custody, started threatening him with dire consequences if he does not come forward to compromise with them  in the case and in view of such threat he lodged report and consequently Cr.No.705 of 2014 was registered under Sections 506 and 507 IPC. Apart from it, the complainant also narrated that some of the accused were involved in other cases and rowdy sheet was opened against A1. The lower Court cancelled the bail taking the above allegations into consideration. It must be noted that the threat allegations are under investigation and the persons who allegedly threatened the defacto complainant and the connection of accused with them if any has to be found out only after through investigation by the concerned police.  However, before that exercise being completed, the lower Court came to a premature conclusion about the correctness of the...
Read more