mala
02 March 2015 at 08:52
wITH DUE RESPECT TO ALL AND GREETING OF THE DAY
Sir
I hv been convicted soely on the basis of some transcript and recorded conversaion produced by the prosecution and they themselveslf admit that this transcript and conversation so recorded were in their office Hence i hv zppealed to the High court
I need clarification and guidance on these aspects
1. Tape recorded conversation
As per law laid down by hon SC and Various High Courts in its in their catena of judgements like Paarasurmireddy etcetc
wherein it is stated that the "MAKER OF THE RECORDED CONVERSATION MUST IDENTIFY THE VOICE"
OR BY ANY OTHERS WHO ARE COMPETENT TO IDENTIFY THE VOICE
NOW my question is
Qn1 Who can be called as the maker of the voice
Is it correct to suggest that in the present case the person as per the case of the prosecution who spoke to me can be said to be the maker of the recordings
only he can identify the person to shom he had spoken to n telephone
and if that person is neither produced as a witness or as accused before the court and I denied the voice coupled with those PWs who identified the voice have neither met me or seen me on any earlier occassion prior thereto . Furthermore when the court itself returned its findings that anything comes in absence of the person either as a witness or accused becomes hearsay evidence and is not admissible
santhosh
21 February 2015 at 18:53
MY SITUATION:
sir!i have been selected for ibps bank interview for clerical post.i have paid fine in the court once i went to pondicherry.myself and my friend was on the way to our room in car with 12 beers.nearly one kilometer before our room there was a checkpost ,the police man caught us for bringing beer.we said that our room was only one kilometer away sir,we are going there only! but he refused to hear that and wrote my details in paper in tamil.. I argued with the Police at the police check post who had stopped me and checked my car.
All this while they stopped one more car, the driver paid a bribe and was let off immediatelt. This was witnessed by my other friend. Then they sent me witha police officer and alcohol to the Police Office near by.
There the officer said the piece of paper was an offical complaint, a 'Special Report', from Check post police against me. They would have to write an official complaint, and I will be arrested. This is because 12 bottles of beer is a lot of quantity for the 4 of us. At the check post, the police officer said my car can be impounded. Here, he said I will be jailed and my friends can pay for the bail.
At this point in time I pleaded, not knowing what is the actual penalty and what was actually written in the 'Special Report', that I pay a penalty and they let me off. He asked me to pay 4000. He asked a friend of mine to sign for something called 'Sureity'. They said they will represent someone else for me in court and I don't have to come back. As soon i paid the amount they said, the case is over and I don't have to bother. I still don't know what was wrong, and what was the actual law and what were the penalties I really had to pay.
MY QUERIES:
1.WILL THIS BE CREATING AN ISSUE WHILE POLICE VERIFICATION?
2.SHOULD I MENTION THIS IN THE VERIFICATION FORM?
3.THIS TOOK PLACE IN PONDICHERRY,BUT I AM LIVING IN SALEM(TAMIL NADU),I HAVE NO POLICE COMPLAINTS ON MY NAME IN LOCAL POLICE STATION,SO IS THERE ANY CHANCE FOR ME TO HIDE THIS?
4.IN THE FORM THERE IS OPTIONS LIKE
A.HAVE YOU BEEN TO COURT?
B.HAVE YOU BEEN ARRESTED?
LIKE THAT...
SIRS,PLS GUIDE ME...AM IN A DEEP DEPRESSION...
ravi
18 February 2015 at 14:13
Respected Sirs,
APPSC has conducted Preliminary examination in the month of May'2012 and selected 16500 candidates for mains examination. Before selecting the candidates for mains, APPSC has given key for preliminary examination. But in APPSC key some mistakes are there. This case went to Supreme court and delivered order (double bench) to re conduct the entire mains examination once again. Appsc filed review petition in supreme court. But the same was rejected by supreme court. Now APPSC has filed Curative petition. My questions are:
(1). What is the probability of success of curative petition after rejecting the review petition by APPSC.
(2). Now the state has been divided in to two. If curative petition is also rejected then any syllabus change will be there or conduct examination with the old syllabus?.
(3). Now there are two public service commissions namely APPSC & TSPSC. who will conduct the main examination and interview?.
Kindly answer my questions.
Thanking You,
Regards,
A.Ravi.
mala
14 February 2015 at 09:51
The case against accused A3 is that
1. he alongwith A1 C. A1 met Sh. R. Venkatraman and complainant on 05.02.2009 in the (R VENKATARAMAN ADVOCATE REGN NO D 205/1996 R/O 305 MEDIA APARTMENTS ABHAY KHAND IV INDIRAPURAM MOB 9910090030) itself and there a demand of Rs.75,000/was raised for early listing of the matter.
2. The further case of the prosecution is that A1 C. A1, A3 A3, A2 KM Singh and Sh. R. Venkatraman visited the complainant on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar and again raised a demand of Rs.75,000/ for showing favour to the complainant relating to the listing of the case.
3. Thereafter, as per the case of the prosecution, A3 comes into scene
4. The complainant believed what Sh. Venkatraman told him. Sh. Venkatraman is not before this court neither as an accused nor as a witness. Anything comes, without it becomes a hearsay evidence which is not admissible on the face of it.
5. Secondly, the alleged fact of visit of A3 A3 alongwith A1 C.A1, Sh. R. Venkatraman and A2 KM Singh on 06.02.2009 at Jantar Mantar has also not been mentioned by the complainant in his complaint Ex.PW2/A lodged on 09.02.2009. It is a matter of record that this version of the complainant came for the first time in his statement recorded on 03.03.2009. Thus, conspicuous absence of this plea in complaint Ex.PW2/A and existence of the same in the statement u/S.161 Cr.P.C. of the complainant, Ex.PW2/DA dated 03.03.2009, makes this plea unbelievable and unreliable.
6. Thus, I consider that as far as demand is concerned, there is no admissible evidence against accused A3 on record.
Accused A3 has also been charged for the offence u/S.7 & 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of POC Act r/w S.120B IPC.
The prosecution has proved on record that after accused KM Singh being apprehended, further trap was laid in pursuant to which Sh. Venkatraman called A3 A3 and a meeting was fixed outside at Pan kiosk.
The tape recorded conversation, tranript of which has been proved on record indicates that accused A3 was in full knowledge of the transaction of bribe. He also knew the purpose of making of payment by the complainant.
Accused A3 also talked to C. A1 on telephone. This telephonic conversation also indicates that there was meeting of mind between accused A3 and C. A1. In the
QUESTION NEED ANSWERS
1. When it is admitted that anything comes in the absence of R Venkataramn becomes hearsay evidence whereas with the same breathe the trial court finds that R Venkataramn had spoke to A3 on telephone also becomes hearsay evidence coupled with who can be sid to be the maker of this record and who are those witnesses who are competent to identify the voice as per law the person who identified the voice of the accused must be maker of the record or by others who are competent to identify the voice
2. A3 spoke to A1 on telephone hence convicted If it is so then why to ignore the fact that A3 was apprehended prior to this conversation and was under the custody of police hence anything spoken or acts performed are not voluntary
3. A2 got acquitted and R Venkataraman was discharged and the court has returned its findings that ince r venkataraman is discharged by my predecessaor and this court has no device to summon him which clarly shows that ignoring crpc 319
mala
12 February 2015 at 20:55
In corruption cases
Q1 . Who is called the maker of the recorded conversation ?
If the DVR is given to A and thereafter A called B in this case who is the maker
Q2. Who are those competent witnesses who can identify the voice while A converses with B on telephone
Q3. If A converses with B in a vernacular language and witnesses who were present donot understand this language
Q4. IF THE PERSON DENOTED AS 'A' IS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURT EITHER AS A WITNESS OR AS AN ACCUSED What is this evidence to be considered if A is not present
mala
06 May 2014 at 09:11
Sir,
1. Whether an appln. for Early Hearing of Crl.A. filed in Delhi High Court is permissible ? if so pl under which sec it falls
2. Whether an appln can be filed to expedite the hearing based on errors in trial court findings since on the bare perusal of the judgement itself it is evident. The trial court had committd an error by giving two findins based on one opinion
3. Whether the petitioner can file the applns on his own as pet.in.person eventhough engaged counsels and counsels wants delay in listing
4. Whether two matters are tagged together and only one wants to expedite the hearing whereas the other one does not want in such a case an application to delink the tagged matter can be filed if so under what sec
BRIEF MATRIX OF THE CASE
1. There were three Accused Persons named as A1 A2 and A3
2. That a complaint was lodged under POC Act 1988 with CBI against A1 and A3
3. Verification team verified and recorded the conversation to prove the demand. The demand was held between the complainant and A1 and A2.
4. After Verification an FIR was registered and named A1 and A2
5. Trap was laid. A2 was caught. Suddenly another person came into picture and told the CBI that this bribe is taken by him at the behest of A1 and A3
6. A2 did not had any contact of A3 and the CBI instructed that new entrant to call A3 for a meeting
7. A3 did not come to the place where the meetng was arranged and was caught from another place
8. A3 was forced to call A1 and subsequently A1 was caught
FINDINGS OF THE COURT
1. The complaint lodged by the complainant is based on hearsay evidence hence not admissible
2. Statement made by the comlainant to CBI wherein he stated another story of another date and this story is not admitted
3. No demand for bribe was proved against A3 hence not charged u/s 13(1)(d) and 13 (2)
A 3 is convicted u/s 7 of poc act and 120B
4. A2 acquitted
5. A1 convicted u/s 7 r/s 13(1)(), 13(2) and 120B of PC Act
6. The new Entrant is an Advocate and as per findings of the court "kingpin and organisor of the show" "Bar councils and Bar Associations of this country to take immediate steps to initiate disciplinary action" "is neither before this court as a witness nor as an accused CBI gave preferential treatment action to be taken against CBI officials"
7. A2 is the junior of the main kingpin hence the amount is accepted at the behest of the employeing advocate and thought it was professional feees.
I am A3 what are the solutions and remedies available for A3 before the Delhi high Court
My name is not mentioned in the FIR Regd.
Kingpin had impersonated his junior in my name
A1 is an accomplice of the kingpin advocate
mala
07 April 2014 at 07:52
Sir
Statement of witness in a departmental inquiry and the same witness gives a different statement in a criminal court. Theepartment takes action on the basis of the statement made by the witness without any evidence whereas the court makes a differet findings on the basis of statement
Whether the statement made before the court is valid and can be used in the department
Kishor
22 March 2014 at 13:13
What should be the role of police and how will they interrogate to me ?/
Dear Sir,
Two years back i took amount of rs 3.5 lacs from one of my friends for doing business and decided to pay him share of profit as consideration instead of any interest for which he gets agreed, in start as i started refunding the same to him and refunded around 1 lacs in first two months but because of some business problem i need to disconnect my business and i was just bank krupt at that time i had informed him that i will pay him whole sum with appropriate consideration.
As i was in depression and in big loss, fortunetly i got a good job opportunity from abrod with good salary and i accepted that and went there.
within next three months i had paid more 50000 to him.
But later on he informed me that he had diverted the whole amount which i had paid to me in interest. when i was out of idia he forcefully taken something in writing from my perents and as my perents were not so much litrate they gave the same without informing me with a good concent.
since earlier i was in business i need to issue cheques, i use to keep signed and crossed, and as the investor use to come to my office he took some cheques which i unable to come to know. when i come to know that the cheques are misplaced i had put stop payment requests with bank but didnt file any complaint with police.
Now he is trying to take the advantage of the cheque.
He has now put around 600000 amount on the cheque and deposited in bank but due to stop payment it get returned but instade of the same he deposied the cheques thries.
when he had deposied the first time i had filed a compliant with police stating all the above facts and they called the other parties.
I dont want any quarrel and litigation and ready to pay the amount also as i had taken it but appropriate amount.
My Queries are .
1. Can he file complaint against me under sec 138, 420 ??
2. What is the procedure with police station and courts ??
3. What are the leagal remedies available to me ??
4. Can police file complaint like "Cross Complaint"
5. Are police going to arrest me, i am afriad becouse he have a good friends with police and due to loss in business i had lost my goodwill.
Please Assist
malasunder
20 March 2014 at 19:08
I am in need of a transparent senior advocate in Chennai. Civil case, Specific performance. Current in Appeal by the Defendant in Madras High court. Very simple and straight forward case. Looking for somebody with good knowledge of registry and court procedures. Please provide email ID for case Brief or name and address for in-person visit. Thanks.
© 2025 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Different views are possible the view which favors the accused must be considered
As per thecatena of Judgements made by Supreme Court that When several views are possible the view which favors the accused mst be considered an the High Courts must refrain from passing any orders and this has been published in lawyersclub also
If so then why he Sates and CBI file appeal against acquittal made by trial Courts and Why the High Courts admit such CRLLP filedand pass orders against acuittal
Secondly When a trial court convicts and th High Court Acquits Why the Supreme Court admits SLP (Crl) filed by the bodies in Supreme Court. There are more than 4000 cases filed aginst acquittal pending in Supreme Court sections whichdeal in Ciminal matters