Abhijit Mishra’s Post

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Criminal Case against the accused can be quashed by the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where A.  Where the allegations made in the complaint or the statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same taken at their face value make out absolutely no case against the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused; B.   Where the allegations made in the complaint are patently absurd and inherently improbable so that no prudent person can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; C.   Where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and D.  Where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the like. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #crime #criminal #police #prosecution #prosecutor #india

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India reiterated the importance of speedy trial and granted bail to an accused who has been in custody for over four years. The court's ruling emphasizes that even serious crimes do not warrant indefinite detention and that the right to a swift trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Supreme Court Reiterates To Speedy Trial: “However serious a crime may be, an accused has a right to a speedy trial as enshrined under the Constitution of India. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. If the state or any prosecuting agency, including the court concerned, has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then the state or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. The right of the accused to have a speedy trial could be said to have been infringed, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution” #SupremeCourtOfIndia #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #Legal #Law #India

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that Bail can be cancelled based on the perusal of the chargesheet and other material/documents produced against the Accused. If there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the respondents are prima facie true, then the bail can be cancelled. It is a settled position of law that the chargesheet need not contain detailed analysis of the evidence. It is for the concerned court considering the application for bail to assess the material/evidence presented by the investigating authority along with the Charge Sheet Report in its entirety, to form its opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the accused is prima facie true or not. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #police #bail #India #prosecution #evidence

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that a judgment of conviction shall have two components, namely A.  Judgment on the point of Conviction B.  Where the accused is convicted, a separate order of sentence to be passed according to law, after hearing the accused on the question of sentence. It is held that once the judgment of conviction is delivered, the accused has a right to be heard on the quantum of the sentence. This is so, in view of the well-established principle of law that various relevant factors, including mitigating circumstances, if any, are to be kept in mind by the court while awarding an adequate and proportionate sentence. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #Lawyer #India #crime #criminal #police

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that it is a settled position of law that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. It is held that when inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above position is strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc. in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilised however, this section does not relieves the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #prosecution #police #evidence #India

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Doctrine of Laches must be considered in consonance with the Doctrine of Proportionality to obtain the factual matrix. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. It is held that delay brings in injustice as delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. It is held that any inordinate Delay must be accompanied by the cogent and factual reasons. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #justice #litigation #India

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Law is well settled about Oral Testimony which can be classified into three categories, viz. :  1.    Wholly reliable 2.    Wholly unreliable 3.    Neither Wholly Reliable nor Wholly Unreliable. The first two category of cases may not pose serious difficulty for the Court in arriving at its conclusion(s). However, in the third category of cases, the Court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration of any material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, as a requirement of the rule of prudence. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #crime #criminal #police #India

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that there is a distinction between a decree passed by a court having no jurisdiction and consequently being a nullity and not executable and a decree of the court which is merely illegal or not passed in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. A decree suffering from illegality or irregularity of procedure, cannot be termed inexecutable by the executing court; the remedy of a person aggrieved by such a decree is to have it set aside in a duly constituted legal proceedings or by a superior court failing which he must obey the command of the decree. A decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be denuded of its efficacy by any collateral attack or in incidental proceedings. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #India #civil

Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that unwarranted litigation by Governments and statutory authorities basically stems from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are: 1.   All claims against the Government/statutory authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest court of the land. 2.   If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the court and secure a decision. It is held that reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against Government is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of litigation. It is held that such reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision-making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision-making. Abhijit Mishra #supremecourt #highcourt #law #legal #lawyer #litigation #government #India

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday said that the petition challenging the decision of the Bar Council Of India (BCI) to allow entry of foreign law firms in India will be heard on September 9. The Court also passed the order allowing the petitioners to file a reply to the BCI affidavit. Read the full story here: https://lnkd.in/d8mnW8zg #DelhiHighCourt #BarCouncilofIndia #ForeignLawFirms #Entryofforeignlawfirms #Barandbench