Kalam-e-fidvi..Ba Zaban-e-fidvi part 1/3

--

Haider Ajaz

Advocate

Choti Diwali / Narak Chaturdasi

The day before Diwali is celebrated as Chhoti Diwali / Narak Chaturdasi or 'small Diwali'. It is Diwali on a smaller scale, with fewer lights lit and fewer crackers burst. The morning after Choti Diwali, the women of the house make beautiful, colored rangoli in the doorway and courtyard. Tiny footprints made out of rice paste are a special feature of the rangolis made for Diwali. In Hindu homes, Chhoti Diwali celebrations involve a ritual puja to Goddess Lakshmi and also to Rama in the evening. Songs in honor of the god are sung and aarti is performed.

Legends behind Chhoti Diwali
The story goes that the demon king Narakasur ruler of Pragjyotishpur (a province to the South of Nepal) after defeating Lord Indra had snatched away the magnificent earrings of Aditi, the Mother Goddess (the ruler of Suraloka and a relative ofSatyabhama, Lord Krishna's wife) and imprisoned sixteen thousand daughters of the gods and saints in his harem.

On coming to know about this, Satyabhama was enraged by Narakasura's malevolence towards women, and she appealed to Krishna to give her the golden chance to destroy Narakasura. The legend also says that Narakasura was given a curse that he would be killed by a woman. Krishna granted Satyabhama a boon to fight with Narakasura. With Krishna as the charioteer, Satyabhama entered the battle field. During the war, Krishna swooned for a while, a preordained divinely act adopted to empower Satyabhama to kill the demon. After Narakasura was beheaded, the imprisoned women were released, and Krishna accepted to marry them.

So on the day previous to Narakachaturdashi, Lord Krishna's divine intervention led to the killing of the demon, Narakasura and liberation of the imprisoned damsels as well as recovery of the precious earrings of Aditi. As a symbol of that victory Lord Krishna smeared his forehead with the demon king's blood. Krishna returned home in the very early morning of the Narakachaturdashi day. The womenfolk massaged scented oil to his body and gave him a good bath to wash away the filth from his body. Since then the custom of taking bath before sunrise on this day has become a traditional practice specially in Maharashtra.

It is interesting to note that Bhudevi, mother of the slain Narakasura, declared that his death should not be a day of mourning but an occasion to celebrate and rejoice. Since then, Deepavali is being celebrated by people every year with joyous celebrations with lot of fun and frolic, and fire works.

In South India that victory of the divine over the mundane is celebrated in a very peculiar way. People wake up before sunrise prepare a paste by mixing Kumkum in oil, symbolizing blood and after breaking a bitter fruit that represents the head of the demon King that was smashed by Krishna, apply that mixture on their foreheads. Then they have an oil bath using sandalwood paste.

In Maharashtra also, traditional early baths with oil and "Uptan" (paste) of gram flour and fragrant powders are a `must'. All through the ritual of baths, deafening sounds of crackers and fireworks are there in order that the children enjoy bathing. Afterward steamed vermicelli with milk and sugar or puffed rice with curd is served.

--

Haider Ajaz

Advocate

RTI: EXEMPTED ORGANISATIONS AS ON 30.06.2011

As on 30.06.2011 Following is the list of Organisations which are Exempted from disclosure of information under the RTI Act 2005.

1. Intelligence Bureau.
2. Research and Analysis Wing of the Cabinet Secretariat.
3. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence.
4. Central Economic Intelligence Bureau.
5. Directorate of Enforcement.
6. Narcotics Control Bureau.
7. Aviation Research Centre.
8. Special Frontier Force.
9. Border Security Force.
10. Central Reserve Police Force.
11. Indo-Tibetan Border Police.
12. Central Industrial Security Force.
13. National Security Guards.
14. Assam Rifles.
15. Sashastra Seema Bal.
16. Directorate General of Income-tax (Investigation) .
17. National Technical Research Organisation.
18. Financial Intelligence Unit, India.
19. Special Protection Group.
20. Defence Research and Development Organisation.
21. Border Road Development Board.

Added vide No.G.S.R.726(E) dated 8 October 2008
22. National Security Council Secretariat

Added Vide notification No. G.S.R. 442(E) dated 09.06.2011
23. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)
24. National investigation Agency (NIA)
25. National Information Grid (NIG)

--

Haider Ajaz

Advocate

CBI Exempted from RTI: EXTRACT OF NOTIFICATION

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

NOTIFICATION

New Delhi, the 9th June, 2011

G.S.R. 442(E).—ln exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (22 of 2005), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the Second Schedule to the said Act, namely

In the Second Schedule to the Right to Information Act, 2005, after serial number 22 and the entry relating thereto, the following serial numbers and entries shall be added, namely:

“23. Central Bureau of Investigation.

24. National Investigation Agency.

25. National Intelligence Grid.”. -

[F. No. 1/3/2011-IR]

RAJEEV KAPOOR, Jt. Secy.

Note :—The Schedule w the Right to Information Act, 2005 was amended vide notification numbers :—

(i) No. G.S.R. 347, dated 28th day of September, 2005;

(ft) No. G S.R. 235(E), dated 28th day of March, 2008; and

(ii) No. G.S.R. 726(E), dated 8th day of October, 2008.

--

Haider Ajaz

Police falsely implicate Muslims for bomb blasts: Justice Katju

Submitted by admin4 on 19 October 2011 - 3:38pm

• Indian Muslim

By TCN Staff Writer,

New Delhi: Justice Markandey Katju, who last month retired from Supreme Court and now has been appointed chairman of Press Council of India, has strongly condemned both media and police for painting the picture of Muslims as bomb throwers. Without mincing words he said Indian police is not trained for forensic investigations and so terror cases remain unresolved.

He criticized the media for jumping to the conclusions within a few hours of bomb blasts merely on the basis of e-mails or messages sent on mobiles. "ﾅthe tendency is to brand all Muslims in the country as terrorists and bomb throwers," Hindustan Times quoted him as saying on 10th Oct. 2011.

Justice Markandey Katju [Photo Courtesy: The Hindu]

Justice Katju reiterated his view in an interview with NDTV on 17th Oct. "The point is that they cannot catch the real culprits, so whomever they think may have committed the crime they catch hold of them," he said in the interview. Training and equipment to conduct scientific investigations is absent in India so it is done by suspicion. Some bomb blast takes place, they catch hold of the local Muslims and young people and implicate them, he added.

Justice Katju suggested that media could be put to be corrected either through the "democratic way by discussions, consultations and persuasion or by using harsh measures by way of imposing heavy fines on defaulters, stopping government advertisements to them and suspending their licences".

Several terror blasts over the last two years have gone unsolved. They include bomb blasts in Bangalore, Varanasi, Pune, Mumbai and most recently New Delhi.

--

Received with thanks from

http://twocircles.net/2011oct19/police_falsely_implicate_muslims_bomb_blasts_justice_katju.html#.Tp73p946Eew.facebook

--

Haider Ajaz

Reserving Judgment : Guidelines to Judges : Supreme Court

Justice K.T. Thomas

Justice K.T. Thomas and Justice R.P. Sethi began their judgment in Anil Rai v. State with the observation : "The magistrate who cannot find time to write judgment within reasonable time after hearing arguments ought not do any judicial work at all. This Court strongly disapproves the magistrates making such a tremendous delay in the delivery of his judgments." The Supreme Court in the above case strongly deprecated the practice of judges in 'reserving' judgments in matters and not pronouncing them for long periods of time. The Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines for the said purpose, which are enumerated hereinbelow;

i) The Chief Justices of the High Courts may issue appropriate directions to the Registry that in a case where the judgment is reserved and is pronounced later, a column be added in the judgment where, on the first page, after the cause-title date of reserving the judgment and date of pronouncing it be separately mentioned by the court officer concerned.

ii) That Chief Justices of the High Courts, on their administrative side, should direct the Court Officers/Readers of the various benches in the High Courts to furnish every month the list of cases in the matters where the judgments reserved are not pronounced within the period of that month.

iii) On noticing that after conclusion of the arguments the judgment is not pronounced within a period of two months the concerned Chief Justice shall draw the attention of the Bench concerned to the pending matter. The Chief Justice may also see the desirability of circulating the statement of such cases in which the judgments have not been pronounced within a period of six weeks from the date of conclusion of the arguments amongst the judges of the High Court for their information. Such communication be conveyed as confidential and in a sealed cover.

iv) Where a judgment is not pronounced within three months from the date of reserving judgment any of the parties in the case is permitted to file an application in the High Court with prayer for early judgment. Such application, as and when filed, shall be listed before the bench concerned within two days excluding the intervening holidays.

v) If the judgment, for any reason, is not pronounced within a period of six months any of the parties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an application before the Chief justice of the High Court with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it over to any other bench for fresh arguments. It is open to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to pass any other order as he deems fit in the circumstances.

--

Received with thanks from,

Legal Blog.in

--

Haider Ajaz

CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 – Inspection of exam answer books permissible

Conclusion

38. In view of the foregoing, the order of the High Court directing the

examining bodies to permit examinees to have inspection of their answer

books is affirmed, subject to the clarifications regarding the scope of the RTI

53

Act and the safeguards and conditions subject to which ‘information’ should

be furnished. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

……………………….J

[R. V. Raveendran]

……………………….J

[A. K. Patnaik]

New Delhi;

August 9, 2011.

--

Haider Ajaz

Facts about Indian Flag (Flag code of India)

General

A-The National Flag shall be a tri-colour panel made up of three rectangular panels or subpanels

of equal widths. The colour of the top panel shall be India saffron (Kesari) and that of the

bottom panel shall be India green. The middle panel shall be white, bearing at its centre the design of

Ashoka Chakra in navy blue colour with 24 equally spaced spokes. The Ashoka Chakra shall

preferably be screen printed or otherwise printed or stenciled or suitably embroidered and shall be

completely visible on both sides of the Flag in the centre of the white panel.

B-The National Flag of India shall be made of hand spun and hand woven wool/cotton/silk

khadi bunting.

C- The National Flag shall be rectangular in shape. The ratio of the length to the height (width)

of the Flag shall be 3:2.

D- The standard sizes of the National Flag shall be as follows:-

1 6300 X 4200

2 3600 X 2400

3 2700 X 1800

4 1800 X 1200

5 1350 X 900

6 900 X 600

7 450 X 300

8 225 X 150

9 150 X 100

E- An appropriate size should be chosen for display. The flags of 450X300 mm size are intended for aircrafts on VVIP flights, 225X150 mm size for motor-cars and 150X100 mm size for table flags.

**THE PREVENTION OF INSULTS TO NATIONAL HONOUR ACT, 1971

(Amended by the Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2003)

Whoever in any public place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates,

defaces, defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows disrespect to or brings into

contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by acts) the Indian National Flag………. or

any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or

with fine, or with both.

Explanation 1. – Comments expressing disapprobation or criticism of the ………Indian National Flag

or an alteration of the Indian National Flag by lawful means do not constitute an offence under this

section.

Explanation 2. – The expression, "Indian National Flag" includes any picture, painting, drawing or

photograph, or other visible representation of the Indian National Flag, or of any part or parts thereof,

made of any substance or represented on any substance.

Explanation 3. – The expression "Public place" means any place intended for use by, or accessible to,

the public and includes any public conveyance.

Explanation 4. – The disrespect to the Indian National Flag means and includes-

(a) a gross affront or indignity offered to the Indian National Flag; or

(b) dipping the Indian National Flag in salute to any person or thing; or

(c) flying the Indian National Flag at half-mast except on occasions on which the Flag is

flown at half-mast on public buildings in accordance with the instructions issued by the

Government; or

(d) using the Indian National Flag as a drapery in any form whatsoever except in state

funerals or armed forces or other para-military forces funerals; or

(e) using the Indian National Flag as a portion of costume or uniform of any description or

embroidering or printing it on cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins or any dress material; or

(f) putting any kind of inscription upon the Indian National Flag; or

(g) using the Indian National Flag as a receptacle for receiving, delivering or carrying

anything except flower petals before the Indian National Flag is unfurled as part of

celebrations on special occasions including the Republic Day or the Independences Day;

or

(h) using the Indian National Flag as covering for a statue or a monument or a speaker's desk

or a speaker's platform; or

(i) allowing the Indian National Flag to touch the ground or the floor or trail in water

intentionally; or

(j) draping the Indian National Flag over the hood, top, and sides or back or on a vehicle,

train, boat or an aircraft or any other similar object; or

(k) using the Indian National Flag as a covering for a building; or

(l) intentionally displaying the Indian National Flag with the "saffron" down.

3A. MINIMUM PENALTY ON SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT OFFENCE

Whoever having already been convicted of an offence under section 2………. is again

convicted of any such offence shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent

offence, with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year.

(iii) the Flag shall not be flown at half-mast except on occasions on which the Flag is

flown at half-mast on public buildings in accordance with the instructions issued by

the Government;

(iv) the Flag shall not be used as a drapery in any form whatsoever, including private

funerals;

(v) the Flag shall not be used as a portion of costume or uniform of any description nor

shall it be embroidered or printed upon cushions, handkerchiefs, napkins or any dress

material;

(vi) lettering of any kind shall not be put upon the Flag;

(vii) the Flag shall not be used as a receptacle for receiving, delivering, holding or carrying

anything;

provided that there shall be no objection to keeping flower petals inside the Flag

before it is unfurled as part of celebrations on special occasions and on National Days

like the Republic Day and the Independence Day;

(viii) when used on occasions like unveiling of a statue, the Flag shall be displayed

distinctly and separately and it shall not be used as a covering for the statue or

monument;

(ix) the Flag shall not be used to cover a speaker’s desk nor shall it be draped over a

speaker’s platform;

(x) the Flag shall not be intentionally allowed to touch the ground or the floor or trail in

water;

(xi) the Flag shall not be draped over the hood, top, sides or back of a vehicle, train, boat

or an aircraft;

(xii) the Flag shall not be used as a covering for a building; and

(xiii) the Flag shall not be intentionally displayed with the “saffron” down.

2.2 A member of public, a private organization or an educational institution may

hoist/display the National Flag on all days and occasions, ceremonial or otherwise. Consistent

with the dignity and honour of the National Flag -

(i) whenever the National Flag is displayed, it should occupy the position of honour and

should be distinctly placed;

(ii) a damaged or dishevelled Flag should not be displayed;

(iii) the Flag should not be flown from a single masthead simultaneously with any other

flag or flags;

(iv) the Flag should not be flown on any vehicle except in accordance with the provisions

contained in Section IX of Part III of this Code;

(v) when the Flag is displayed on a speaker’s platform, it should be flown on the

speaker’s right as he faces the audience or flat against the wall, above and behind the

speaker;

(vi) when the Flag is displayed flat and horizontal on a wall, the saffron band should be

upper most and when displayed vertically, the saffron band shall be on the right with

reference to the Flag (i.e. left to the person facing the Flag);

(vii) to the extent possible, the Flag should conform to the specifications prescribed in Part

I of this Code.

(viii) no other flag or bunting should be placed higher than or above or side by side with

the National Flag; nor should any object including flowers or garlands or emblem be

placed on or above the Flag-mast from which the Flag is flown;

(ix) the Flag should not be used as a festoon, rosette or bunting or in any other manner for

decoration;

(x) the Flag made of paper may be waved by public on occasions of important national,

cultural and sports events. However, such paper Flags should not be discarded or

thrown on the ground after the event. As far as possible, it should be disposed of in

private consistent with the dignity of the Flag;

(xi) where the Flag is displayed in open, it should, as far as possible, be flown from

sunrise to sunset, irrespective of weather conditions;

(xii) the Flag should not be displayed or fastened in any manner as may damage it; and

(xiii) when the Flag is in a damaged or soiled condition, it shall be destroyed as a whole in

private, preferably by burning or by any other method consistent with the dignity of

the Flag.

2.3 The National Flag may be hoisted in educational institutions (schools, colleges, sports

camps, scout camps, etc.) to inspire respect for the Flag. A model set of instructions for

guidance is given below -

(i) The School will assemble in open square formation with pupils forming the three

sides and the Flag-staff at the centre of the fourth side. The Headmaster, the pupil

leader and the person unfurling the Flag (if other than the Headmaster) will stand three

paces behind the Flag-staff.

(ii) The pupils will fall according to classes and in squads of ten (or other number

according to strength). These squads will be arranged one behind the other. The pupil

leader of the class will stand to the right of the first row of his class and the form

master will stand three paces behind the last row of his class, towards the middle. The

classes will be arranged along the square in the order of seniority with the seniormost

class at the right end.

(iii) The distance between each row should be at least one pace (30 inches); and the space

between Form and Form should be the same.

(iv) When each Form or Class is ready, the Class leader will step forward and salute the

selected school pupil leader. As soon as all the Forms are ready, the school pupil

leader will step up to the Headmaster and salute him. The Headmaster will return the

salute. Then, the Flag will be unfurled. The School pupil leader may assist.

(v) The School pupil leader in charge of the parade (or assembly) will call the parade to

attention, just before the unfurling, and he will call them to the salute when the Flag

flies out. The parade will keep at the salute for a brief interval, and then on the

command “order”, the parade will come to the attention position.

(vi) The Flag Salutation will be followed by the National Anthem. The parade will be

kept at the attention during this part of the function.

(vii) On all occasions when the pledge is taken, the pledge will follow the National

Anthem. When taking the pledge the Assembly will stand to attention and the

Headmaster will administer the pledge ceremoniously and the Assembly will repeat it

after him.

(viii) In pledging allegiance to the National Flag, the practice to be adopted in Schools is as

follows:-

Standing with folded hands, all repeat together the following pledge:

“I pledge allegiance to the National Flag and to the Sovereign Socialist Secular

Democratic Republic for which it stands.”

--

Haider Ajaz

Advocate

JUDGMENTS OF COURTS OF JUSTICE ARE RELEVANT ONLY UNDER SECTIONS 40 TO 44 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT AND NOT OTHERWISE. ....

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. - 43

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19497 of 2011

Petitioner :- Akash Kumar Sharma And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajay Kumar Singh,Vivek Kumar Singh
Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
1. Heard Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the Code') for quashing the proceedings of the session trial no. 1058A of 2000, State vs. Akash Kumar Sharma and others, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.3, Meerut.
3. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh submitted that initially the charge sheet was filed against co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar and Smt. Daulat. The matter reached the court of session on committal, which was registered as S.T. No. 1058/2000, State vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar and another but the learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of relevant evidence, summoned also the petitioners as accused under section 319 of the Code vide his order dated 4.2.2004. The petitioners moved application No. 17170 of 2005 in this Court under section 482 of the Code, in which an interim order dated 25.11.2005 staying the proceedings of the trial against the petitioners was passed. Consequently, the trial of co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar and Smt. Daulat took place separately and they were acquitted on 29.3.2007 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.15, Meerut. When the said two accused were acquitted, the trial against the petitioners was lying stayed, therefore, their case could not be decided and remained pending. Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J. dismissed the petitioners' petition no.17170/2005 on 19.8.2010 and vacated the stay order, consequently the trial proceeded also against the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the judgment rendered in S.T. No. 1058/2000, whereby co-accused Raju @ Raj Kumar and Smt. Daulat have been acquitted, the trial of the petitioners would be nothing except a futile exercise, therefore, the proceedings of the sessions trial no. 1058-A/2000 may be quashed. It was next submitted that when co-accused persons have been acquitted, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of that judgment on the principle of stare decissis.
5. In my opinion, the present petition does not appear to be maintainable in view of the fact that the first petition filed on behalf of the petitioners has already been dismissed by this Court on merits. At the time of dismissal of the first petition, the acquittal judgment was available, therefore, the petitioners could very will press the aforesaid ground (ground of acquittal of co-accused) while pressing the first petition but they did not do so, therefore, they can not be permitted to file a fresh petition for quashing the proceedings of the session trial no. 1058A of 2000.
6. In order to appreciate the question of relevancy of a judgment of acquittal in the subsequent trial against another accused of the same incident, it seems to be just and expedient to examine the relevant provisions contained in the Evidence Act. Sections 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Evidence Act provides for relevancy of judgment of Courts of justice. Section 40 provides the circumstances in which a previous judgment, order or decree may be relevant to bar a subsequent suit or trial. Section 41 deals with the relevancy of certain judgments in probate, matrimonial, admiralty or insolvency jurisdiction. Section 42 deals with the relevancy and effect of judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in section 41 in so far as they relate to matters of a public nature. Section 43 provides that judgments, orders or decrees, other than those mentioned in sections 40, 41 and 42, are irrelevant, unless the existence of such judgment, order or decree, is a fact in issue, or is relevant under some other provisions of the Evidence Act. Section 44 deals with, fraud or collusion in obtaining judgment, or incompetency of the Court which delivered it. Therefore, a previous judgment, order or decree which is final, can be relied upon in any way as provided in sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act in a criminal case as well as in civil suits and not otherwise.
7. The Apex Court had occasions to consider the relevancy of judgments of acquittal in the subsequent trial being held against other accused. Some of the decisions of the Apex Court being relevant on the point in issue are as follows:
(1)S.P.E. Madras vs. K.V. Sundravelu (1978) 2 SCC 514;
(2)Rajan Rai vs. State of Bihar, 2006 (1) SCC 191;
(3)K.G. Premshanker vs. Inspector of Police & another, 2003 (1) JIC 206 (SC);
(4)Karan Singh vs. State of M.P. AIR 1965 SC 1037.

8. In the case of S.P.E. Madras (supra) the trial court had splitted the case into two cases. In the first case, the accused was convicted by the court of sessions but was acquitted by the High Court. On the basis of the acquittal order passed in the first case, the High Court quashed the second case. The Apex Court held that there was no justification for taking the view that evidence in both the cases was similar. The Apex Court further held that it is not the requirement of the law that if one case is ended in acquittal, prosecution in other case would be illegal. So also it can not be said that High Court's opinion that the charge was not "likely to stand" the trial, was on a point of law within the meaning of section 215 of the Code, therefore, the Apex Court quashed the order of the High Court.
9. In the case of Rajan Rai (supra) the investigating officer submitted charge sheet against six accused on which basis the trial proceeded but one accused (Rajan Rai) absconded. Consequently, his trial was separated and the trial against five other accused persons proceeded but out of them one accused died before the commencement of the trial, therefore, trial was held against four accused persons, who were convicted and sentenced by the trial court. The four convicted accused persons filed appeal in the High Court against their conviction, which was allowed by the High Court and all of them were acquitted. The acquittal judgment attained finality. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the aforesaid four accused, the absconded accused Rajan Rai was apprehended and his trial was held separately, who was ultimately convicted by the trial court. He also preferred an appeal in the High Court but his appeal was taken up after disposal of the first appeal filed by four other accused persons and his learned counsel argued that four co-accused persons had already been acquitted, therefore, appellant Rajan Rai was also entitled to the benefit of that judgment. The Apex Court held that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court in appeal arising out of the earlier sessions trial was not relevant under the other provisions of the Evidence Act and was clearly irrelevant and could not have been taken into consideration by the High Court. The Apex Court opined that the decision in the case had to turn on the evidence led in it. The case of the accused, who was tried subsequently had to be decided only on the basis of evidence led during the course of his trial and the evidence led in the case of previously tried accused persons was irrelevant. The Apex Court while propounding the aforesaid principles, relied upon the decision of Privy Council in Hui Chi-ming vs. R., (1991) 3 All.ER 897. In that case, the Privy Council held that evidence of the outcome of an earlier trial arising out of the same transaction was irrelevant and therefore inadmissible since the verdict reached by a different jury, whether on the same or different evidence, in the earlier trial amounted to no more than evidence of the opinion of that jury. Further, it was laid down that a person could properly be convicted of aiding and abetting an offence even though the principal offender had been acquitted and accordingly, the trial Judge had rightly excluded evidence of the principal offender's acquittal of murder.
10. In the case of K.G. Premshanker (supra), the accused had been tried for certain offences alleged to have been committed in an incident. A civil suit for the damages, arising out of the incident, was also filed against the accused, which was dismissed. It was contended that the decision rendered by the civil court will prevail over the criminal prosecution, therefore, criminal proceeding was liable to be dropped. The Apex Court, keeping in view the provisions of section 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act, opined that the previous judgment which was final could be relied upon as provided under sections 40 to 43 of the Act and not otherwise. This principle was laid down on the basis of the decision of a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of M.S. Sheriff and another vs. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 397. In the case of M.S. Sheriff, the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court dealt with exactly similar situation as was in the case of K.G. Premshanker. In that case too, two sets of proceeding arising out of same facts were pending, namely, two civil suits for damages for wrongful confinement and another two criminal prosecutions under section 344 IPC for wrongful confinement. In that context the Constitution Bench held as follows:
"As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment."
11. In the case of Karan Singh (supra), one Ram Hans had absconded, so other accused persons were put up for trial. The learned Sessions Judge convicted Karan Singh and acquitted remaining other accused. The accused Karan Singh preferred an appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court but after the conviction of Karan Singh and hearing of the appeal in the High Court, the absconded accused Ram Hans had been arrested and put up for trial on the same charges and was acquitted. Karan Singh submitted before the High Court that co-accused persons had been acquitted, therefore, he was also entitled to acquittal. The M.P. High Court did not accept that plea of Karan Singh and maintained his conviction. The matter was ultimately brought before the Apex Court in appeal. The Apex Court held that each case has to be decided on the evidence led in it irrespective of any view of the same act that might have been taken on different evidence led in other case. It was further held that in spite of acquittal of a person in one case it is open to the Court in another case to proceed on the basis of evidence of the subsequent case. In this view of the matter, the Apex Court did not grant any benefit of acquittal order passed in favour of co-accused.
12. A Division Bench of this Court in Km. Rinki vs. State of U.P. & others, 2008 (3) JIC 267 (All.) (D.B.) and Hon'ble Single Judge in Raj Dularey Shukla v. State, 2006 (1) JIC 887 (All.) also propounded the same principle and held that if some of the accused are acquitted in a trial separately held, the other accused is not entitled to the benefit of acquittal order and his case is to be decided separately on the basis of the evidence adduced during his trial.
13. The aforesaid decisions have settled the legal position that judgments of courts of justice may be relevant under any of the provisions of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act and not otherwise. In other words, if any judgment, order or decree of a court does not fulfill requirements of any of the aforesaid sections, it has no relevancy and must be held to be irrelevant. It is also well settled that every trial has to be decided on the basis of the evidence adduced in the trial itself, therefore, the previous judgment of acquittal rendered in a trial, if it is not relevant under any of sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act has no relevancy in the subsequent trial being held against co-accused and he can not be permitted to claim any advantage of such judgment, which is merely an opinion of the judge on the basis of the evidence led in the previous trial. The only relevancy of such judgment is to decide the question of applicability of bar to the subsequent trial under section 300 of the Code as section 40 of the Evidence Act makes the previous judgment relevant only for such purposes and not otherwise. In such matters, sections 41 to 44 of the Evidence Act also have no application. In this view of the matter the proceeding of the session trial being held against the petitioners can not be quashed on the basis of the judgment of acquittal rendered in favour of co-accused persons.
14. For the reasons stated above, the petition has no merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.9.2011
RKSh

--

Haider Ajaz

Advocate