Top News Headlines 10th Jun 2022: After Taking Cognizance Of Offences, The Court Cannot Review Its Own Order And Drop/Withdraw Sections

After Taking Cognizance Of Offences, The Court Cannot Review Its Own Order And Drop/Withdraw Sections: Allahabad HC

• In Jagveer vs State of UP and ors. the Hon’ble Allahabad HC has held that once a Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences, it has no power to review its own order for dropping sections from the cognizance order. 
• In the instant case, an FIR was registered against the petitioner/accused for offences under sections 147, 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC and during the investigation, section 308 IPC was also added. The police submitted the chargesheet for offences under sections 147, 323, 324, 325, 308, 504 and 506 IPC in the Court of CJM, Saharanpur and on this the Court took cognizance. 
• The accused later moved an application before the Magistrate alleging that no case was made out under section 308 IPC and hence the cognizance which was taken under the same be withdrawn. The application was rejected by the CJM, Saharanpur, and the same rejection was upheld by the Sessions Judge in revision. Hence, the present appeal was moved before the Hon’ble HC under Article 227. 
• It was argued that none of the injuries inflicted on the victim were life threatening, still the Magistrate had taken cognizance under section 308 IPC, among others. 
• At the outset, the Hon’ble Court observed that the scope of judicial review granted by Article 227 of the Constitution is very limited. The power under Article 227 of the Constitution does not vest the HC with any unlimited prerogative to correct all the wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. 
• The Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in DN Banerji vs PR Mukherjee AIR 1953 SC wherein the Court had held that unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or a flagrant violation of the law calling for intervention, it is not for the HC under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere. 
• In Waryam Singh and anr vs Amarnath and anr AIR 1954 SC the Apex Court had observed that the power of superintendence conferred by Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate Courts within the limits of their authority, and not for correcting mere errors. 
• Thus, the Court observed that once the Court has taken cognizance for offences, it has no power to review its own order for dropping some sections from the same. 
• Thus, holding that the Court in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot re-appreciate the evidence and draw conclusions on its own, and dismissed the petition. 

Question Of Jurisdiction To Be Tried As Preliminary Issue If Raised And Not At Final Stage: Kerala High Court

• In S. Dhanalakshmi v. Sahal V.J & Anr, the Kerala High Court held that when a defendant raises a question on the jurisdiction and an issue is framed in the suit regarding the same, the Court should try it as a preliminary issue for the convenience of the parties.
• The Court further said that the finding on jurisdiction at the final stage would cause unnecessary hardships for the parties and hence, the issue regarding jurisdiction must be tried at first hand.
• In this case, in a suit before the Kottayam Additional Sub Court, the petitioner was the 2nd defendant where he filed an application contending that the said Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
• However, the Sub-Judge decided to hear the issue of jurisdiction along with the suit.
• The counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Femina Handloom of India v. M/s.M.R.Verma & Sons, argued that the issue of jurisdiction must be tried as a preliminary issue and that the procedure adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and requires interference. 
• The Ld. Court observed that the suit was instituted in 2013 and when the written statement was filed on 03.09.2013, the petitioner admitted that part of the transaction was within the jurisdiction of the Sub Court, Kottayam.
• Subsequently, the petitioner submitted in the reply affidavit that the circumstances that led to the above contention in the written statement have been explained and later it was revealed that the respondent has factories only in one place in Kottayam that is in Erattupetta.
• The Court did not accept the contention of the petitioner but held that either way, the procedure adopted by the trial Court is erroneous and the question of jurisdiction must be decided as a preliminary issue. Consequently, the said order was set aside.
• Instead of remitting the case back to the trial Court to decide the issue of jurisdiction fresh, the High Court itself addressed the issue to facilitate its early disposal.
• The Court observed that since the respondent specifically contended that part of the transaction took place in Kottayam, and this was admitted by the petitioner in the written statement, it was held that the Sub Court, Kottayam has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit and the petitioner's application was accordingly dismissed.

Court Has The Authority To Allow Prosecution To Produce Certificate U/S 65-B (4) Evidence Act At A Later Stage During Trial: Allahabad High Court

• In Shyam Sunder Prasad v. Central Bureau Of Investigation Lucknow, the Allahabad High Court held that the trial Court is empowered to permit the prosecution to produce certificates u/s 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act at a later point during the trial.
•  
• A Single Bench consisting of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh made the above mentioned observations while uploading the order of the trial Court allowing the application filed by the prosecution u/s 311 CrPC to put on record two certificates u/s 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, as they were not filed in property form during the filing of the charge sheet.
• Section 65-B (4) of the Indian Evidence Act aims to set apart secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer.
• In this case, the revisionist/accused was serving as the Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank where he allegedly demanded a bribe of INR 80,000/- from the complainant for defreezing the account. A complaint was, thus, made by the accused.
• On 25.04.2014, during the verification of the complaint, the complainant requested the accused to reduce the bribe amount to INR 50,000/- and the same was agreed upon by the latter.
• This conversation was recorded in a CD and was a trap laid to catch the accused revisionist red-handed.
• Subsequently, the C.B.I. filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable u/s 7 and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused in 2014. However, the certificate under section 65-B (4) was not filed by the CBI in a proper format.
• Presently, in 2021 an application was filed u/s 311 CrPC to bring on record two certificates regarding the CDs (containing the conversation b/w the accused and the complainant) u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act, and to recall the witnesses to prove those certificates.
• The Court allowed this application and the aggrieved accused approached the HC with an instant revision plea challenging this order.
• The Court took reliance on the Supreme Court judgement in Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal & Ors., wherein it was held that Section 65-B (4) of the Act does not mention the stage of furnishing the certificate.
• Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the two CSs have already been supplied to the revisionist and only certificates under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act have been allowed to be produced to prove.
• The Court thus held that by allowing the application u/s 311 of CrPC, the revisionist was not prejudiced in any manner whatsoever, by producing the certificates in respect of the electronic evidence and accordingly, the Court dismissed the instant revision plea.