Inadequate Explanation Under Section 313 CrPC Cannot Be Foundation For Conviction If Prosecution Fails To Prove Case: Allahabad High Court No-Confidence Motion In Housing Societies Fails If 2/3 Majority Not Met; Fractions In Voting Threshold Cannot Be Rounded Down: Bombay High Court Successor Rent Controller Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Or Act As Appellate Court Under Review Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court Restores Eviction Order Article 21 Overrides PMLA Section 45 Rigors In Cases Of Unduly Long Incarceration Without Trial: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail To SSC Scam ‘Middleman’ Unregistered Family Partition Deed Recording Past Oral Arrangement Doesn't Require Compulsory Registration: Gujarat High Court Private Banks Acting As Authorised Dealers Under FEMA Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction; Can Refuse Transactions For 'Sanctions-Related' Concerns: Gauhati High Court Non-Examination Of Investigating Officer Not Fatal To Prosecution Case If Eyewitness Testimony Is Credible & Trustworthy: Jharkhand High Court Mere Denial Of Signature Insufficient When Execution Is Proved Through Endorsements: Karnataka High Court Restores Specific Performance Decree Sectarianism Claims Can't Discredit Reliable Testimony Of Child Sexual Abuse Victim: Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's Conviction State Must Prove Specific 'Public Interest' To Exempt Projects From Social Impact Assessment Under Section 10A Land Acquisition Act: Telangana High Court Or 2 Rule 2 CPC |Failure To Seek Specific Performance In Earlier Injunction Suit Bars Subsequent Claim; Readiness & Willingness Must Be Continuous: Madras High Court Exoneration In Departmental Proceedings Does Not Result In Automatic Discharge In Criminal Case: Orissa High Court History Sheet Can Be Opened On 'Reasonable Belief' Even Without Conviction, But Must Be Reviewed After 7 Years Of Good Conduct: Rajasthan High Court

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