Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme 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