JUDGMENT CITED AT THE BAR

S.N Title Citation Ratio

o.
1. Abdul Rehman v. Anees-Ul- 2008 (2) JCC S.195 (1)(a) Cr.P.C. – Complaint for offences U/S.211 and 500
Haq 881 IPC – Pendency of enquiry into allegations made in complaint
before CAW Cell – Such complaint containing allegations
amounting to offences U/S.211 and 500 IPC – Taking of
cognizance of offences U/S211/500 IPC on complaint made by
those against whom the complaint has been made to CAW Cell
– Not Barred.
2. Baban Singh v. Jagdish AIR 1967 SC S.340, Cr.P.C. – Offence U/s.191 IPC is constituted by swearing
Singh 68 falsely when one is bound by oath to state the truth because an
affidavit is a declaration made under an oath. The definition of
the offence of giving false evidence thus applies to the
affidavits. The offence may also fall within S.192. It lays down
inter alia that a person is said to fabricate false evidence if he
makes a document containing a false statement intending that
such false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial
proceeding and so appearing in evidence may cause any
person who, in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the
evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point
material to the result of such proceeding. When Babban Singh
and Dharichhan Kuer made declarations in their affidavits
which were tendered in the High Court to be taken into
consideration, they intended the statements to appear in
 evidence in a judicial proceeding, and so appearing, to cause
the Court to entertain an erroneous opinion regarding the
compromise.
3. Brahm Prakash Gupta v. 2008 (4) JCC S.156 (3) Cr.L.J. – Powers vested in a Magistrate to direct
State 2331 police officer to investigate a matter is to be exercised
judiciously on appropriate grounds and not in a mechanical
manner – To be exercised where the Magistrate feels that the
nature of the allegations in the complaint are such that
complainant himself may not be able to collect and produce
evidence before the Court and feels the necessity of the police
stepping in to held the complainant.

It curtails and controls the arbitrariness on the pat of the

police authorities in the matter of registration of FIRS and not
taking up investigation even in those cases where the same are
warranted – However complainant cannot be allowed to misuse
this provision to get police case registered even if the
allegations in the complaint are not serious in nature and the
Magistrate can held inquiry himself and proceed against the
accused, if required.

The complainant is in knowledge of the entire facts and

circumstances of the case – He is in possession of the evidence
which he can adduce at the pre-summoning stage in the
inquiry of the complaint by the Magisrate – The facts narrated
in the complaint clearly indicate that no assistance of the
police is required either by directing it to register a case and
 investigate the same when Magistrate can himself hold an
inquiry.
4. Chiman Singh v. State of 1986 S.61(1)(c) Punjab Excise Act – The petitioner allegedly
Punjab C.C.C.278 apprehended distilling illegal liquor by means of working mill
at the dhan of a river. The prosecution story rests solely on the
testimony of two officials witnesses. No effort was made to join
the independent witness from the village. It renders
prosecution case doubtful.
5. Daulat Ram v. State of AIR 1962 SC S.195 Cr.P.C. – Report to Tehsildar with a view to take action –
Punjab 1206 Report found false – Offence U/s 182 IPC is complete even if no
action is taken on report – Prosecution U/S.182 IPC must be on
the complaint in writing by Tehsildar – There is an absolute bar
against the Court taking seisin of the case U/S.182 IPC except
in the manner provided by S.195 Cr.P.C.
6. Devinder Mohan Zakhmi 2002 Cr.L.J. The entertainment of the application of the respondents by the
v. 4485 trial Court in order to enable them to produce evidence in
Amritsar Improvement defence was against the mandate of law.
Trust
7. Hridayangshu 2002 Cr.L.J. S.340 Cr.P.C. – If any forgery is committed in the Civil Court in
Bhattarcharjee 624 the matter of civil cases, an inquiry will be held in accordance
v. with S.340 Cr.P.C. The scope of preliminary enquiry envisaged
State of Jharkhand U/S.340 (1), Cr.P.C. is to ascertain whether any offence
attracting administration of justice has been committed in
respect of document produced in Court. The Court below
committed error in giving the opportunity to the opposite
parties for cross-examination of the witnesses of the petitioner.
8. Iqbal Singh Marwah v. 2005 II AD S.195(1)(b)(ii), Cr.P.C. – Interpretation of the expression “when
 Meenakshi Marwah (Cr.) SC 12 such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court” – Any offence committed with respect to a document at
a time prior to its production or giving in evidence in Court
cannot strictly speaking, be said to be an offence affecting
administration of justice.
9. K. Karunakaran v. T. V. 1987 SCC S.340 Cr.P.C. –At an enquiry held by the Court U/S.340(1),
Eachara Warrier (Cr.) 32 Cr.P.C. irrespective of the result of the main case, the only
question is whether a prima facie case is made out which, if
unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the
specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the
interest of justice take such action. The party may choose to
place all its materials before the Court at that stage, but if it
does not, it will not be estopped from doing so later in the trial,
in case prosecution is sanctioned by the Court.
An enquiry, when made, U/S.340(1) Cr.P.C. is really in the
nature of affording a locus paenitentiae to a person and if at
that stage the Court chooses to take action, it does not mean
that he will not have full and adequate opportunity in due
course of the process of justice to establish his innocence.
The two pre-conditions which are necessary for laying a
complaint after an enquiry U/S.340, Cr.P.C. are that the
material produced before the Court make out a prima facie
case for a complaint and secondly that it is expedient in the
interest of justice to permit the prosecution U/S.193, IPC.
10.Kuldeep Kapoor v. Susanta 126 (2006) S.191 and 192 IPC define the offences which would constitute
Sengupta DLT 149 giving false and fabricating evidence and S.193 IPC provides

11.M/s IRCON International
Limited v. Union of India (Cr.) DHC 326 non-employment in any establishment during the period 7 th
punishment for commissioning of such offences. The person,
who is legally bound by Oath or any provisions of law to state
truth, makes a false statement or declaration which he either
knows or believes to be false or does not believe it to be true,
would be said to have given false evidence. Such statement
could be verbal or otherwise. While a person, who causes any
circumstance to exist or make any false entry in any book or
record with an intent that such circumstance, false entry or
false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial
proceeding or a proceeding taken by law and even may cause
any person, who in such proceeding, is to form an opinion upon
the evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion, will be said to
have fabricated false evidence.
2004 I AD S.340 Cr.P.C. – The respondent made false averments about his
December, 1983 to 7th September, 2002, and he applied for
passport only in March, 1998 and supported by his affidavit.
A Court is thus required to ensure that the free flow of the
unsoiled stream of justice is not obstructed. Of late litigants
have tended to utter falsehoods with impunity as on several
occasions they have managed to get away with such false
statements owning to the unnecessary indulgence and
misplaced generosity. False averments on oath not only vitiate
the probity of judicial proceedings but considerable time is
spent and expenses incurred for truth to be unraveled. Thus if
a dishonest plaintiff secures and continues an interim order on
 a false averment and a dishonest defendant delays the
proceedings by pleading a false defence, then unless and until
willful lies are viewed sternly and dealh with effectively, the
judicial system will suffer thereby harming the honest litigant.
Contumacious falsehoods by unscrupulous litigants have been
eating into the vitals of our judicial system and ought to be put
down firmly.
12.Madan Lal Sharma v. 2000 A reading of S.340, Cr.P.C. shows that the Court is empowered
Registrar, Punjab & Cr.L.J.1512 to make such preliminary inquiry as it thinks necessary. The
Haryana High Court very word used in S.340, Cr.P.C. contemplates that it is always
for the Court to hold a preliminary inquiry. The Section does
not envisage hearing of the accused before filing a complaint.
It is always open to the accused to raise all the defences that
are open to him under Law before the Magistrate in whose
Court the complaint has been filed. The principle of audi-
alteram-partem only means that no party should be condemned
un-heard. It does not postulate that before making complaint, a
party should be heard. The petitioner has not been condemned
of any act or omission. This Court prima-facie took the view
that a forged document has been used for the purpose of
showing that the appeal filed by the appellants in the first
appeal in land acquisition matter was within limitation.
Whether any forgery was committed or not; whether the
petitioner is responsible for committing the forgery and
whether the petitioner is guilty of any offence, are all matters
to be gone into during the trial of the case.

13.Manjit Kaur v. Durga
Builders Pvt. Ltd.
Whether delay in filing complaint is a ground for quashing it?
No.
Complaint filed against the petitioner U/S.193, 196, 465 and
475 IPC – Prosecution launched after 16 years – Offences
alleged to have been committed by petitioners is an offence
against society intended to dent the public exchequer – On
facts and circumstances, right of speedy disposal U/Art. 21 not
attracted.
155 (2008) A person in possession of the best evidence is bound to place
DLT 240 the same before the Court irrespective of the onus of burden of
proof – company petition filed in collusion to defeat judgments
passed against the Company – Petition Dismissed.

14.Manohar Lal v. Vinesh 2001 Cr.L.J. S.190, 225 Cr.P.C. – To pursue an offender in the event of
Anad 2044 commission of an offence, is to sub-serve a social need –
Society cannot afford to have a criminal escape his liability,
since that would bring about a state of social pollution, which
is neither desired nor warranted and this is irrespective of the
concept of locus – the doctrine of locus standi is totally foreign
to criminal jurisprudence.
We are unable to record our concurrence with the submissions
made in support of the appeal that the arbitrator can be
termed to be a Court within the meaning of S.195 Cr.P.C., as
such question of applicability of S.340 Cr.P.C. in a proceeding
before the Arbitrator does not and cannot arise.
15.Mithlesh v. State of NCT of
Delhi
2009 (4) JCC If there is a commission of an offence of forgery during the
2609 course of Trial then there is a bar U/S.195(1)(b)(ii) in as much
as no Court shall take cognizance of any such offence except
on the complaint in writing of by the Court concerned. This is
on account of the fact that this is treated as an offence against
the Court or against the administration of justice, and
therefore, the condition has been put that the criminal justice
machinery should not be put into operation without the
permission of the complaint being made by the complainant
which happens to be the Court itself or of an officer of the
Court. This is in contradiction where the offence itself has not
taken place during the course of judicial proceedings but prior
to that. In the instant case admittedly the allegations made by
the complainant is that the respondent filed the documents like
GPA, Reciept, Will etc. and thereafter, obtained a decree
against the petitioner. Thus, Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not
applicable in case of the petitioner. If that be so noting
precludes the petitioner from filing the complaint as he does
not require the permission of the Court.
It is not incumbent in each and every case that the Magistrate
must direct registration of an FIR and the consequent
investigation by the police. The Magistrate can take an enquiry
U/S.200 Cr.P.C. by examining the complainant and other
witnesses which are produced and then proceed to deal with
the complaint U/S.202 to 204 Cr.P.C. It seems that the
petitioner wants to bring bare pressure on the other side by

16.N. Natarajan v. B. K. Subba
Rao
registration of an FIR. This is on account of the fact that once
an FIR is registered other side namely the accused persons
would be on run because they will face an imminent threat of
arrest and secondly it becomes convenient for the complainant
as well because it will become a State case where the presence
of the complainant is not required on every date of hearing.
That is the modus operandi which is invariably adopted and
aimed at by every petitioner.
AIR 2003 SC Whether different statements at different stages of the case
541 made by the Public Prosecutor would amount to any offence
attracting the provisions of S.340 Cr.P.C?
Ans: By not stretch of imagination, can we say that the stand
of a counsel, however, inconsistent it may be at different
stages of the proceedings, can amount to offences adverted to
U/S.195 Cr.P.C. If the Courts begin to issue for prosecution or
as to why the inquiry should not be made in the matter or to
launch a prosecution, no Advocate can function with safety nor
can be assist the Court with the necessary fearlessness which
is required of him.
Art. 136 of the Constitution of India enables Supreme Court to
exercise in its discretion appellate powers by granting special
leave from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any Court or
tribunal in India. This power is conferred on the Supreme
Court notwithstanding the provisions of for regular appeal
from proceedings in different enactments being available and
there may remain some cases where justice might require
interference by the Supreme Court with the decision of High
Courts or the tribunals of the land. The power of the Supreme
Court to grant leave to appeal from any decision of any Court
or tribunal is not subject to any limitation and is left entirely to
the discretion of the Supreme Court. Though the Supreme
Court is circumspect in its exercise of its jurisdiction under
Art.136 it has a duty to interfere in cases of grave miscarriage
of justice. It is trite to say that the extraordinary power
conferred U/Art. 136 of the Constitution cannot be taken away
by any legislation short of constitutional amendment. The
nature of the statute or limitation imposed within a statute
deter this Court from exercising its jurisdiction. It is not even
restricted by the appellate provisions enumerated in Criminal
Procedure Code or any other statute.

An appeal lies when a matter is finally and conclusively

decided by a Court or a tribunal. If the High Court or the
Supreme Court, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction
U/Art.226 or Art.136 of the Constitution or S.482 Cr.P.C. as the
case may be quashes certain proceedings, a party cannot
complain that his right to appeal had been deprived.

It is well settled that in criminal law that a complaint can be

lodged by anyone who has become aware of a crime having
been committed and thereby set the law into motion in respect
of offences adverted to in S.195 Cr.P.C. there is restriction that

17.Nanak @ Kaddul v. State of
Punjab
the same cannot be entertained unless a complaint is made by
a Court because the offence is stated to have been committed
in relation to the proceedings in that Court S.340 Cr.P.C. is
invoked to get over the bar imposed U/S.195 Cr.P.C. In
ordinary crimes not adverted to U/S.195 Cr.P.C., if in respect
of any offence, law can be set into motion by any citizen of this
country, we fail to see how any citizen of this country cannot
approach even under S.340, Cr.P.C. For that matter, the
wordings of S.340 Cr.P.C. are significant. The Court will have
to act in the interest of justice on a complaint or otherwise.
Assuming that the complaint may have to be made at the
instance of a party having an interest in the matter, still the
Court can take action in the matter otherwise than on a
complaint, that is, when it has received information as to a
crime having been committed covered by the said provision.
Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to examine this aspect of
the matter. We proceed on the basis that the respondent has
locus standi to present the complaint before the Designated
Judge.
1993 (1) CC S.61(1)(c) Punjab Excise Act – Accused was found working in a
127 still for the manufacture of illicit liquor inside the residential
house and convicted – No independent witness was joined by
the prosecution – Conviction cannot be sustained on the basis
of the statements of the police and excise officials. Moreover,
when the articles of still were produced in Court, they did not
bear identification marks. The boiler was not fit for use and in
the plastic can there was no liquor. It was obviously the duty of
 the prosecution to have kept the material exhibits of the case
intact till they were produced in Court.
18.Nirmal Singh v. State of 2007 (2) The petitioner is seeking superdari of the vehicle involved in an
Punjab C.C.C. (HC) offence U/NDPS Act – Superdari of vehicle only to its
91 registered owner – the transaction of sale was already
complete and formalities of change of ownership remained – It
can thus be safely said that the petitioner was an ostensible
owner of the vehicle and superdari of vehicle can be given to
him.
19.Padmakar Balkrishna 1996 Cr. L.J. S.195, 340 Cr.P.C. – Allegations that the respondents their
Samant v. State of 2476 affidavit deliberately made false statements – S.340 and 195
Maharashtra are intended to prevent indiscriminate prosecution under the
various sections mentioned therein – The allegations of the
petitioner remained unsubstantiated even on elaborate enquiry
– A prayer for perjury ought to have been made in the principal
proceedings in respect of which the perjury is stated to have
been committed while it was pending – The Court which is
seized of the principal proceedings has to be informed that a
party before it has committed perjury and action for the same
be initiated – The Bench decided the lis on the basis of the
pleadings before it and no plea was raised that the defence was
false and taken on the basis of the non-genuine documents.
The decision has attained finality and reopening it will amount
to travesty of justice.

20.Pritish AIR 2002 SC S.340 Cr.P.C. – Whether the Court should have heard the
v. 236 accused before order prosecution for using forged documents?
 State of Maharashtra
21.S. P. Chengalvaraya Naidu AIR 1994 SC
v. Jagannath
22.Satish Khosla v. Eli Lilly 1998 (1) JCC
Ranbaxy Ltd.
No.
At the stage of inquiry U/S.340 (1), Cr.P.C., the Court is not
deciding the guilt or innocence of the accused against whom
the Court might file a complaint before the Magistrate. The
Court only considers where it is expedient in the interest of
justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence
affecting administration of justice. There is no statutory
requirement to afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused
against whom that Court might file a complaint before the
Magistrate for initiating prosecution proceedings.
“Fraud-avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal”
853 observed Chief Justice Edward Coke of England about three
centuries ago. It is the settled proposition of law that a
judgment or decree obtained by playing fraud on the court is a
nullity and non est in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree
– by the first court or by the highest court – has to be treated
as a nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It can
be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings.
If a party withholds a vital document in order to gain
advantage on the other side than he would be guilty of playing
fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – By withholding the plaint and
(Delhi) 54 the application in the earlier suit from the Court and by not
disclosing to the Court about the proceedings in the earlier suit
and the stay having not been granted to it, the plaintiff had
tried to get an advantage from the Court and was, therefore,
guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the defendant

23.Satish Kumar v. Union of
India
and is thus, guilty of contempt.
2009 (108) O.23 R.1, CPC – Withdrawal of suit – leave to file fresh suit
DLT 317 sought – refused on the ground of concealment, fraud and
perjury – Held: Appellant was trying to claim rights in the suit
land. These rights were not even adjudicated upon in the suit
as the appellant sought permission to withdraw the suit. What
is important is that though the suit was dismissed as
withdrawn, liberty to file fresh suit was not granted as the
Court was of the view that there was concealment of important
and necessary facts in the plaint, the statements of the plaintiff
and his attorney recorded U/X, CPC under Oath were
contradictory and misleading and they tried to play fraud upon
the Court as the possession of the DDA over the suit land for
last number of years was accepted etc. Ld. Single Judge rightly
refused to give liberty and costs imposed in a matter like this
are most proper and needs no interference.
Directions for proceedings U/S.340 Cr.P.C. and registration of
FIR – The Court can direct the initiation of proceeding under
the said provision if –
1. the said person has given a false affidavit or evidence in a
proceeding before a Court; or
2. in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient, in the interest
of justice, to make an inquiry against such a person in
relation to the offence committed by him.
3. Additional factor which may also be considered is that
 perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the
conviction is reasonably probable or likely.
24.Star Paper Mills Ltd. v. 40 (1990) DLT There is no legal bar to the continuance of criminal and civil
Behari Lal Madan Lal 281 proceedings simultaneously.
Jaipuria Ltd.
25.State of A.P. v. T. (2005) 6 SCC The land which was offered for surrender by the respondent
Suryachandra Rao 149 had already been acquired by the State and the same had
vested in it. This was clearly a case of fraud. Merely because
an enquiry was made, the Tribunal was not divested of the
power to correct the error when the respondent had clearly
committed a fraud.
26.State of Punjab v. Gurmej 1991 (2) RCR S.61 (a) Punjab Excise Act – Recovery of illicit liquor – No
Singh 361 independent witness joined – there were 20 shops nearby and
Investigating Officer had ample opportunity to join
independent witnesses – Statements of official witnesses not
sufficient to convict the accused – Contention that police
officials had no ill-will to involve the accused in false case not
tenable.
27.Sukhwasi v. State of U.P. 2008 Cr.L.J. It is not incumbent upon a Magistrate to allow an application
472 U/S.156(3) Cr.P.C. and there is no such legal mandate. He may
or may not allow the application in his discretion. Magistrate
has a discretion to treat an application U/S.156(3) Cr.P.C. as a
complaint.
28.Suo Motu Proceedings 2001 Cr.L.J. Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and
against Mr. R. Karuppan, 2611 adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides
Advocate determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences
committed against the society. The Courts are further expected
to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any
extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would
be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the
litigants, who attempt to mislead the Court by filing and relying
upon the false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication
of which is dependent upon the statement of facts. If the
results of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues
before the Courts must be resolved to the extent possible in
accordance with truth. The purity of proceedings of the Court
cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous,
vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence
inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to
harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be
preserved and protected discouraging the filing of
irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy. At
common law Courts took action against a person who was
shown to have made a statement, material in the proceedings,
which he knew to be false or did not believe it to be true. The
offence committed by him is known as perjury. In India, law
relating to the offence of perjury is given a statutory definition
under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code,
incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false
evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated
under the Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of
moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous
litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in
the Courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the

29.Suresh Kumar Gupta v.
State of Gujarat Cr.L.J.3948
30.Virindar Kumar v. State of AIR 1956 SC
Punjab
judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general
impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the
Courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the
interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action
is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury,
concededly let lose by vested interest and professional
litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal
with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the
Courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the
commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal
Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of
the time. The present case is no exception to the general
practice being followed by many of the litigants in the country.
1997 S.156(3) Cr.L.J. – Whenever a direction to inquire U/S.156(3)
Cr.P.C. is given, the said order of direction should be a
speaking one to reflect the reason why for what material to be
collected he needs the police to investigate. Indiscriminate
exercise of discretion cannot be said to be judicial.
S.195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. – Whether the returning officer
153 U/Representation of People Act is a Court?
Ans: If the complaint relates to offences mentioned in S.195(1)
(b) and 195(1)(c), an appeal would be competent, but not if it
relates to offences mentioned in S.195(1)(a). Where the order
of the District Magistrate directs that the appellant should be
prosecuted for offences U/S.181, 182 and 193 IPC, the order so
far as it relates to offences U/S.181 and 182 IPC is not appeal-
able as they fall directly U/S.195(1)(a). S.193 IPC makes it an
offence to give false evidence whether it be in a judicial
proceeding or not, and it likewise makes it an offence to
fabricate false evidence for use in a judicial proceeding or
elsewhere.
If the offence is not committed in a judicial proceeding, when it
will fall outside S.195(1)(b), which applies only when it is
committed in or in relation to a proceeding in a Court, and
consequently, there is no bar to a complaint being made in
respect thereof unaffected by the restrictions contained in
S.195(1)(b).
But if the offence U/S.193 IPC is committed in or in relation to
a proceeding in Court, then it will fall U/S.195(1)(b), and the
order directing prosecution U/S.476 will be appelable U/S.476-
B. The point for decision therefore is whether the returning
officer in deciding on the validity of a nomination paper U/S.36
of the Representation of the People Act can be held to act as a
Court.

What distinguishes a Court from a quasi judicial tribunal is that

it is charged with a duty to decide disputes in a judicial manner
and declare the rights of parties in a definitive judgment. To
decide in a judicial manner involves that the parties are
entitled as a matter of right to be heard in support of their
claim and to adduce evidence in proof of it and it also imports
an obligation on the part of the authority to decide the matter
on a consideration of the evidence adduced and in accordance

31.Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu
with law.
When a question arises as to whether an authority created by
an Act is a Court as distinguished from a quasi-judicial
tribunal, what has to be decided is whether having regard to
the provisions of the Act it possesses all attributes of the Court.
U/S.36(2), the returning officer has to examine the nomination
paper and decide all objections which may be made thereto.
This power is undoubtedly judicial in character. But in
exercising this power, he authorized to come to a decision,
“after such summary enquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary”.
That means that the parties have no right to insist on
producing evidence which they may desire to adduce in
support of their case. There is no machinery provided for
summoning of witnesses, or of compelling production of
documents in an enquiry U/S.36.
Whether action should be taken U/S.195 is a matter primarily
for the Court which hears the application, and its discretion is
not to be lightly interfered with in appeal.
AIR 1981 SC S.154 Cr.P.C. - One of the disturbing features of the case is the
1230 strange conduct of P.W. 15 the Sub-Inspector of Police…..we
have never come across a case where the Station House Officer
has taken the First Information Report Book with him to the
scene of occurrence. We cannot imagine how any F.I.R. Book,
can disappear from a Police Station. Though he claimed that

32.Ganesh Bhawan v. State of
Maharashtra
relevant entries had been made in the general diary at the
Station the Sub-Inspector did not also produce the general
diary in Court.
Another feature of the case which makes us doubt the
credibility of the witnesses is the photographic and somewhat
dramatic account which they gave of the incident with minute
details of the attack on each of the victims.
One other important feature of the case which remains
unexplained by the prosecution witnesses is the injuries found
on A4. According to A4 the prosecution party came to his
house and attacked him and the prosecution party were injured
in that incident, suggesting thereby that he acted in exercise of
his right of private defence. He, however, excludes the
presence of the other accused. Whether his version is true or
not, the fact remains that he did sustain some injuries which
have remained unexplained.
AIR 1979 SC Powers of Appellate Court - In an appeal from an order of
135 acquittal the powers of the High Court to reassess the evidence
and reach its own conclusion are as extensive as in an appeal
against an order of conviction, yet, as a rule of prudence, it
should "always give proper weight and consideration to such
matters as (1) the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility
of the witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence in favour of
the accused, a presumption certainly not weakened by the fact
that he has been acquitted at the trial; (3) the right of the

33.Sahaj Ram v. State of U.P.
accused to the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an
appellate Court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a
Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses." Where
two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on
record, the High Court should as a matter of judicial caution,
refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by
the Court below. In other words, if the main grounds on which
the Court below has based its order acquitting the accused, are
reasonable and plausible, and cannot be entirely and
effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not
disturb the acquittal.
Delay of a few hours, simpliciter, in recording the statements
of eye-witnesses may not, by itself, amount to a serious
infirmity in the prosecution case. But it may assume such a
character if there are concomitant circumstances to suggest
that the investigator was deliberately marking time with a view
to decide about the shape to be given to the case and the
eyewitnesses to be introduced. Thus under the facts and
circumstances of the case delay in recording the statements of
the material witnesses, casts a cloud of suspicion on the
credibility of the on the warr and woof of the prosecution story.
AIR 1973 SC The prosecution is not bound to call all available witnesses
618 irrespective of considerations of number or reliability,
witnesses essential to the unfolding of the narrative on which
the prosecution is based must be called by the prosecution,
whether in the result the effect of their testimony is for or
against the case of the prosecution. The High Court has not

34.Rahim Beg v. State of U.P.
considered as to what value has to be attached to P. Ws. 1 to 3
when once the witnesses, who corroborated them, were found
to give false evidence.
This really is a case, in our opinion, where the courts have
substantially disbelieved the substratum of the prosecution's
case and have reconstructed a story of their own against the
appellants.
AIR 1973 SC Rape – Victim 12 yr. old virgin girl – No cogent explanation has
343 been furnished as to why they were not soon thereafter got
medically examined by the police. No injury on the male organ
of any of the accused found. The absence of injuries on the
male organs of the accused persons would point to their
innocence. Mahadeo not having been asked to furnish an
explanation regarding the stain of human blood on his bush
shirt no inference can be drawn against Mahadeo on that
account.
Extra-judicial confession is a weak type of confession. No
previous history of association between the witness and
accused. It is highly improbable that the accused would go to
the witnesses and blurt the confession.
Semen found on the longot. Accused 22 yrs. old. Longot was
dirty. Semen can exist for variety of reasons. No inference can
be drawn against the accused and would not connect him with
crime.

Necessary witness not produced by the prosecution. It

introduced infirmity in the prosecution case.

Unexplained injuries on the person of the accused suggest use

of third degree methods during the investigation of the case.