Whether the complainant is exempted from transfer of the case as per the judgment of Dasarth Rathod case - “145. Evidence on affidavit. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974.) the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.Crl. M.C. No.4958/2014 Page 5 of 9 (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.” = There may be three situations when notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. is served upon an accused;(i) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. the matter is fixed for DE as no application as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by the accused; (ii) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C., an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by an accused but it is yet to be allowed by a Magistrate; and (iii) After serving notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the application moved under Section 145(2) of the NI Act by an accused for cross-examination of the complainant, has been allowed by the Magistrate. whether the trial would be said to have commenced in all the aforesaid three situations or not. It is only in the third situation when the application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act has been allowed by the Magistrate that the trial would commence within the meaning of Section 145(2) of the NI Act. - Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (supra) the Apex Court observed that the category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Act or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as clarified therein, to the Court where it is presently pending. In the present case, it is not disputed that the notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner on 29.05.2014 and the petitioner was granted time to move an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act. No application under Section 145(2) of NI Act was filed by the petitioner. The request to cross-examine the complainant in terms of Section 145(2) has not been allowed by the learned trial court.Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that the complaint has reached the stage of Section 145(2) of NI Act or beyond thereof. - 2015 Delhi (2015)msklawreports

Whether the complainant is exempted from transfer of the case as per the judgment of Dasarth Rathod case - “145. Evidence on affidavit. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (2 of 1974.) the evidence of the complainant may be given by him on affidavit and may, subject to all just exceptions be read in evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceeding under the said Code.Crl. M.C. No.4958/2014 Page 5 of 9 (2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, and shall, on the application of the prosecution or the accused, summon and examine any person giving evidence on affidavit as to the facts contained therein.” = There may be three situations when notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. is served upon an accused;(i) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C. the matter is fixed for DE as no application as envisaged in Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by the accused; (ii) After framing of notice in terms of Section 251 of Cr.P.C., an application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act is moved by an accused but it is yet to be allowed by a Magistrate; and (iii) After serving notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the application moved under Section 145(2) of the NI Act by an accused for cross-examination of the complainant, has been allowed by the Magistrate. whether the trial would be said to have commenced in all the aforesaid three situations or not. It is only in the third situation when the application under Section 145(2) of the NI Act has been allowed by the Magistrate that the trial would commence within the meaning of Section 145(2) of the NI Act. - Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod’s case (supra) the Apex Court observed that the category of complaint cases where proceedings have gone to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Act or beyond shall be deemed to have been transferred from the Court ordinarily possessing territorial jurisdiction, as clarified therein, to the Court where it is presently pending. In the present case, it is not disputed that the notice under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. was served on the petitioner on 29.05.2014 and the petitioner was granted time to move an application under Section 145(2) of NI Act. No application under Section 145(2) of NI Act was filed by the petitioner. The request to cross-examine the complainant in terms of Section 145(2) has not been allowed by the learned trial court.Thus, in my view, it cannot be said that the complaint has reached the stage of Section 145(2) of NI Act or beyond thereof. - 2015 Delhi (2015)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