Top News Headlines 31st May 2022: Rules Of Procedure Are Hand-Maid Of Justice

Rules Of Procedure Are Hand-Maid Of Justice: Refusing To Permit Documents Even If There Is Some Delay Will Be Denial Of Justice: SC

• In Levaku Pedda Reddamma vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that refusing to permit a party in a civil suit to produce additional documents even if there is some delay will lead to a denial of justice. 
• It is better for the Trial Court, in such cases, to impose costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself, the Hon’ble Court observed. 
• The instant appeal was filed against the order of the High Court affirming the order passed by the Trial Court refusing to permit the production of documents in terms of Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC. 
• Order 8 Rule 1A of CPC states that when the defendant bases his defence on a document, or relies upon a document in his possession or power, he shall enter the same in a list and shall present the same before the Court along with his written statement.
• Order VIII Rule 1A(3) of CPC states that a document which ought to be produced before the Court under this rule, but is not so produced, will not be received in evidence on behalf of the defendant at the hearing of the suit, except with the leave of the Court.  
• The Hon’ble SC observed that the HC as well as the Trial Court had committed a grave error in law when they did not permit the production of the document, the relevance of which could be deciphered by the Trial Court on the basis of evidence to be led, but to deprive the party of his right to file the documents, even if there is some delay in the production of the same would amount to denial of justice. 
• The Court went on to observe that the rules of procedure are a hand-maid of justice and that even if there is some delay, the Trial Court in this case should have imposed some costs, instead of declining the production of the documents itself. 
• Thus, in light of the aforementioned observations, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was allowed to produce additional documents. 

Allahabad HC Grants Anticipatory Bail: Unnatural That Father-in-Law Would Rape Daughter-in-Law In Indian Culture

• The Hon’ble Allahabad HC, in the case of Babu Khan vs State of UP has observed that it is very unnatural in Indian culture that a father-in-law would rape his own daughter-in-law in Indian culture.
• Justice Ajit Singh of the Allahabad HC has cited this as one of the reasons while granting the anticipatory bail to the applicant after his daughter-in-law filed a rape case against him and another man, under sections 376, 504, 506 and 511 of IPC. 
• The FIR was lodged by the alleged victim against Babu Khan, her father-in-law, the present accused, and other co-accused, Mohammad Haroon. It was alleged that on 1-03-2008, at about 6 pm, the applicant alongwith the co-accused, came to the house of the victim’s brother, asking for his whereabouts, when she was alone. When she said that her brother was not at home, then Babu Khan started abusing her. It was further alleged that the victim tried to stop him, and the she was pushed on the bed, and both the accused tried to rape her. 
• The Counsel for the appellant argued that Mohammed Haroon, a similarly placed co-accused, had already been granted anticipatory bail, and that the applicant was also entitled to get anticipatory bail on the ground of parity, since his case also stood on the same footing. 
• The Hon’ble Court observed that without going into the merits of the case and taking into account the antecedents of the applicants and the nature of accusation, and also considering the fact that it is quite unnatural for a father-in-law to rape his own daughter in law alongwith some other person in our Indian Culture, and considering that the accusation was made with the intent to harm the accused’s reputation in the society, the accused should be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest. 
• The Court also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble SC in Sushila Aggarwal vs State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC and Satendra Kumar Anil vs CBI (2021). 
• Thus, the application for anticipatory bail was granted to the accused on his furnishing a personal bond with 2 sureties each, in the like amount of Rs. 25, 000.