Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Overturns Punjab and Haryana High Court’s Proclamation Guidelines and Bail Order

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


August 8, 2023* — In a significant legal reversal, the Supreme Court has set aside a series of guidelines issued by the Punjab and Haryana High Court pertaining to the issuance of proclamations under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). These guidelines were part of a judgment granting bail to an accused, DARSHAN SINGH & ANR, and outlined the procedure for summoning witnesses crucial to the prosecution.

The High Court’s guidelines, which aimed to expedite the prosecution’s evidence, were reevaluated by the Apex Court bench, including HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT and HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s order had overlooked important provisions, leading to an erroneous interpretation of the law.

The guidelines highlighted by the High Court included summoning witnesses, skipping witnesses based on non-availability, utilizing formal and expert witnesses, and employing digital communication for witness appearance. The High Court’s order emphasized expeditious completion of prosecution evidence, considering the accused’s extended custody and delayed recording of witnesses’ statements.

However, the Supreme Court’s judgment pinpointed crucial legal discrepancies in the guidelines. The Court noted that the High Court’s order had misapplied the purpose of Section 82 Cr.P.C. and had inadvertently neglected important provisions such as Form 5, 6, Sections 83 and 174A of the Cr.P.C.

While the Apex Court upheld the bail granted to the accused, it set aside the directions given by the High Court to the State and Courts within the specified territories. The Supreme Court highlighted the necessity of adhering to accurate legal interpretations and acknowledged that the case of the prosecution was that of the State against the accused.

This judgment reinforces the significance of precision and comprehensive understanding of legal provisions, particularly when issuing guidelines that impact the progression of legal proceedings and individual rights. It stands as a reminder of the careful consideration required while interpreting and applying the law to ensure justice prevails.

For more legal updates and insights, stay tuned.

Quotes from the Observation on Legal Point Part of Judgment:

“The impugned order also reveals that the Court took into consideration Sections 174, 82 and 311 IPC. The Court noted Section 174 but went on to hold that the defaulting witness can be punished with simple imprisonment with a term extending up to six months or fine.”

“The impugned order has inadvertently or otherwise entirely overlooked Form 5 and 6 and the important provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, i.e., Sections 83 and 174A.”

“It shall not be open to the police to put forward reasons of law and order work or any other of their functions as excuses for not complying with the order of the Trial Court to secure the presence of their witness.”

Date : 08-08-2023

Haryana At Chandigarh) THE STATE OF HARYANA  vs DARSHAN SINGH & ANR. 

Latest Legal News