Court 1/ 8 People's rights and Social resp Center vs Union of India (PIL)
Court 2/2 Soni Sori vs State of Chattisgarh (Soni who is alleged to have links with Naxals has alleged torture in the hands of Chattisgarh police)
Court 5/101 Bombay Blasts of 1993
Court 6/1 Ratan Tata vs UOI (Matter asking that Radia tapes should not be made public)
Court 7/1 CBI vs Amit Shah (CBI praying to SC that bail granted to Amit Shah should be cancelled)
Court 11/1A Judgment on the bail applications of corporates accused in 2G scam (Hari Nair, Surender Pipara, Vinod Goenka, Sanjay Chandra and Gautam Doshi)
Note : For quick reference to the arguments on behalf of all these corporates you can refer to the following link http://spreadlaw.blogspot.com/2011/10/arguments-in-sc-on-bail-applications-of.html
Amit Shah's lawyer Ram Jethmalani today demolished the CBI claim that Tulsiram Prajapati was an eyewitness to the fake encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh. While advancing his arguments before a bench of Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Desai accused the CBI of fabricating evidebce to implicate former Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah.
Continuing his arguments through out the day, Jethmalani ridiculed CBI by saying ''...These fabricators of evidence do not know what they have done to their case. They have been misleading the court all along. Tulsiram Prajapati was not with Sohrabuddin but he was in a jail in Rajasthan...''.
While citing the letters written by Prajapati to NHRC, Jethmalani claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that Prajapati was an eyewitness to the encounter. He also referred that the statement of Azam Khan, on which the CBI is relying heavily, saying that Azam Khan should have been a defence withness. Azam Khan in his statement had told the CBI that Prajapati felt guily and responsible for the death of Sohrabudding. And according to Jethmalani this statement of Azam Khan does not indicate that Prajapati was an eyewitness.
Defending his client Amit Shah, Jethmalani also accused Patel Brothers of misleading Gujarat Police. ''...There was an incident of firing at the office of Patel brothers and they know Sohrabuddin was behind it but they never informed the police about it. Sohrabuddin wanted to recover some money and he wanted to terrify Patel Brother rather than killing them. This is an absurd argument that Amit Shah arranged that firing so that can be used as a justification for encountering Sohrabuddin...'' argued Jethmalani.
During the arguments, Jethmalani also placed before the court various judgments of the apex court. According to these judgments bail and no the jail is the golden rule for Criminal Jurisprudence in India.
Hearing in the matter shall continue on Wednesday.
Bench of Justice B S Chauhan and Justice Swatantra Kumar
Ram Jethmalani resumed his arguments in the case of Delhi Police crackdown on Ramlila Maidan on 4th June this year. Starting his arguments before a bench of Justice B S Chauhan and Justice Swatantra Kumar, Jethmalani argued on use of Section 144, whether Delhi Police could withdraw the permission granted to Baba Ramdev, background of Ramdev’s movement against corruption, MCD’s power to cancel permission, affidavit of Delhi Police and role of Home Minister P Chidambaram.
Section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code
Jethmalani resumed his arguments of power of the police to use Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Jethmalani pointed out the conditions under which this section can be used by the police. According to Jethmalani, section 144 can only be used in cases where there is a need for immediate prevention and there is a need for speedy remedy. Jethmalani reiterate that section 144 can not be used for dangers which are foreseen in future but only in cases of imminent dangers. Jethmalani went on to say that the order issued under section 144 must prescribe the material facts.
Jethmalani went on to say that order under section 144 can only be used for two things; first is to direct any person to abstain from any particular act and second is to ask a person to take certain orders regarding certain property under his management.“…In this case, the only act people were doing was breathing. Section 144 can only be used if a person is interfering with the rights of any other person. In this case, there is nothing like this. Usually politicians attract section 144 and not the teachers of Yoga. This order is perverse and dishonest.” argued Jethmalani.
At this point Jethmalani also cited a Supreme Court judgment on this issue. 1970/3/SCC/746. According to the said judgment section 144 can be used in cases where emergency must be sudden and the consequences are grave. Without this there is no justification to use power under section 144.
Whether Delhi Police could withdraw permission given to Baba Ramdev
Taking his arguments forward, Jethmalani pointed towards the act of police to withdraw permission from Baba Ramdev to hold his protest at Ramlila Maidan. Jethmalani enumerated few points before the bench. According to Jethmalani, it was the MCD which is the owner of Ramlila maidan and MCD as a matter of routine and not law, asked the Bharat Swabhiman Trust to get a NOC from Delhi police. According to Jethmalani , Delhi police promptly gave the NOC but with the some conditions. Accordingly,
1.They were instructed not to obstruct the flow of traffic
2.They were to get the permission from the owner that is MCD
3.They were asked to deploy sufficient number of volunteers to manage the crowds at the venue
4.And they were asked to follow conditions imposed from time to time otherwise the NOC would be revoked
Jethmalani pointed out that even MCD objected to the fact that Delhi Police had claimed that they shall be at liberty to cancel the permission if any of the conditions were not met.
At this point, Justice B S Chauhan inquired from Ram Jethmalani if police had the power to revoke the permission granted under any statute? Jethmalani informed the court that police had no power to revoke the permission as it was MCD which could have done it.
Background of Baba Ramdev’s movement against corruption
Atthis stage, Ram Jethmalani took the court to the background of the movement against corruption. According to Jethmalani Swami Ramdev had been working tirelessly to bring back black money stashed abroad.
“…This is not the first time Ramdev organized a fast. He travelled length and breadth of the country. Even the Prime Minister had written back to Ramdev regarding the government’s efforts to bring back black money stashed abroad…” informed Jethmalani. Jethmalani also brought to the notice of the court how Ramdev was persuaded by the police not to hold his fast at Jantar Mantar. Jethmalani informed the court that Ramdev had the permission to hold Satyagraha at Jantar Mantar also.
According to Jethmalani government was not serious about efforts to bring back black money and the idea was to crush the movement. Jethmalani also mentioned that government had filed a SLP in the Supreme Court against the order to appoint a SIT to monitor government’s efforts to bring back black money. “…They knew names of these dacoits will manifest and they will join the wonderful inmates who have assembled in the Tihar Jain right now…” said Jethmalani.
At this point of time, Jethmalani mentioned failure of the then Home Secretary to file an affidavit on the entire incident. According to him “…The home secretary is too honest to file an affidavit. He has retired, if he was in service, he might have succumbed to the pressure…” Jethmalani also referred to a secret report of the Delhi Police filed in a sealed cover before the Supreme Court. Surprisingly, Jethmalani had the copy of it. While trying to demolish the contents of the said report he said in a lighter vein that a stolen evidence is also a good evidence. He also mentioned about that report which stated that as per reliable inputs, Sadhus will come and the total number of people gathering might be more than one lakh. According to the said report, the Satyagraha will shift from Ramlila Maidan to Jantar Mantar and Ramlila Maidan would be used for mobilization.
Procedure for cancellation of permission by MCD
At this point of time, Ram Jethmalani informed the court about the procedure by which MCD can revoke the permission granted to anyone. Accordingly, the MCD can only cancel the permission on the recommendations of District Commissioner who will decide after a proper hearing. “…Even the MCD could not have done it at middle of the night and the police officers did it. Actually it was police who constituted illegal assembly that night. I don’t know if the sleeping people could constitute assembly ….” argued Jethmalani.
Affidavit of Delhi Police
At this point of time, Ram Jethmalani tore apart averments made in the affidavit filed by Delhi Police. Jethmalani argued that in the affidavit, there are references to the effect that the local people living in the vicinity of Ramlila Maidan are terrorists. Jethmalani slammed the apprehensions of Delhi Police that someone might smuggle a bag of explosives at the venue and there might be a loss of life and limb. Jethmalani also blasted Delhi Police for mentioning Gujarat riots. “…they are now talking of 2002 riots in 2011, all for the purpose of elections. Earlier we used to have a saying that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely but now we have a saying that power corrupts and fear of losing power corrupts absolutely…” argued Jethmalani.
Order Passed under Section 144
Jethmalani also attacked Delhi Police for poorly drafting order under Section 144. “…If they were apprehensive of a terrorist attack then this is a material fact. Where has this been stated in order under Section 144? This order doesn’t comply with the sections requirements. It is an assault on our common sense and fraud on law. We were not doing anything unlawful…” argued Jethmalani.
Role of home minister P Chidambaram
Attacking Chidambaram in the very beginning of his arugments on this point, Jethmalani said “…Home Minister is responsible for all this and the government as a whole…” Jethmalani drew the attention of the court to the press release issued by the Home Ministry on 8th of June. According to the said release, a decision was taken that Ramdev shall not be allowed to carry on any fast or protest and shall not be allowed to stay in Delhi. “…Are we living in dictatorship or a Nazi rule that Ramdev shall not be allowed to stay in Delhi?” roared Jethmalani
Referring to an interview of Chidambaram, Jethmalani said that Home Minister said the decision in this regard was taken earlier. “…when was this decision taken? The Home Secretary was to file and affidavit but nothing has been filed. The enforcement of the order was deferred as the government was engaged in a dialogue with Ramdev, this means that the decision was taken earlier…” said Jethmalani.
At this point Jethmalani concluded his arguments and said that the people of this country shall express gratitude to the judiciary if they get what has been prayed for.
Questions raised by Judges
At this point of time, the bench asked few questions from U U Lalit who started his arguments on behalf of Delhi Police. Justice Swatantra Kumar asked Lalit to address the court on few issues like whether the use of force was justified? What were the circumstance which led to the action and why the police could not wait till the morning to ask the people to leave the venue? The bench also wanted to know when was the decision to revoke the permission granted to Ramdev was taken by Delhi Police and whether the order issued under section 144 confirms to the conditions laid down under the section.
Arguments of U U Lalit for Delhi Police
At this point of time, U U Lalit started to address the court on the circumstances which led to the Delhi Police action at Ramlila Maidan. Lalit informed the court that no violence was used and only the tear gas shells were used by the police to disburse the crowd. Lalit referred to the fact that Bharat Swabiman Trust had sought permission for not more than five thousand people and that too for holding a Yoga Shivir and not for any protest for fast unto death.
Lalit also informed about various published material of the trust which announced that Ramdev shall be sitting on indefinite fast from 4th of June.
(Proceedings over, matter adjourned to Friday that is 25th November 2011)
The Supreme Court has asked Delhi Police to explain whether the use of force was justified? What were the circumstance which led to the action and why the police could not wait till the morning to ask the people to leave the venue?
The court also wanted to know when was the decision to revoke the permission granted to Baba Ramdev was taken by Delhi Police and whether the order issued under section 144 confirms to the conditions laid down under the section.
Earlier in the day, Ram Jethmalani blamed Home Minister P Chidambaram for trying to crush the rights of the ordinery people to protest peacefully. ''...Are we living under dictatorship or a Nazi rule that Baba Ramdev shall not be allowed to carry out his protest and will not be allowed to stay in Delhi?..'' roared Jethmalani.
After Jethmalani concluded his arguments, Senior Advocate U U Lalit started the arguments on behalf of Delhi police. Matter has been adjourned to coming Friday.
Court 1/34 Democratic Youth Federation vs Union of India
Court 2/6 Webb construction vs UOI (fresh)
Court 3/12 Manjeet Singh Bhatia vs UOI (fresh)
Court 4/205 S D Bandi vs div traffic commissioner (illegal occupation of govt bunglows)
Court 6/50 Ghodawat Pan Masala vs UOI (might be related to Gutkha packaging case)
Court 7/201 KG Dhananjay Chauhan vs UOI (Kargil procurement scam)
Court 8/40 Delhi Wakf Board vs UOI
Court 10/9 BR Lall & ors vs UOI (fresh)
Court 11/3 Sanjeev Awasthi vs UOI Court 11/206 -- Delhi Industries Confederation vs UOI
(Note : Issues in fresh PILs will be known after the hearing)
The apex court dismissed as withdrawn the petition filed by controversial Gujarat's IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt. Bhatt was asking for removal of certain observation against him from the High Court's order in a matter relating to alleged custodial death 21 years ago.
The apex court refused to interfere with the High Court's order giving him liberty to challange the withdrawal of revision petition by the State of Gujarat.
In a matter of alleged custodial death in a riot case, Bhatt was made an accused but the State Government had filed the revision petition against the order of magistrate taking cognizance. But after the recent developments, the state had withdrawn the revision application. This action of the state government gave way to criminal proceedings to go on agiainst Bhatt.
A bench headed by Justice B S Chauhan refused to give any relief to Bhatt sayong he can move himself challenge the decision of the state government to withdraw the revision application.
Bhatt also wanted the protection that the observations made against him in the High Court order should not be used against him while the sessions court considers his application againt the move of the state government.
According to Bhatt, the Gujarat High court wrongly mentioned the death as custodial death. Bhatt also argued that the High Court presumed that the issue of taking Cognizance has been adjudicated upto the level of Supreme Court.
(Note: This is an article written for layman having no knowledge of law. If you are a lawyer or a legal expert, please feel free to point out if there is any mistake in the article. If you want to give your inputs to make this better, please leave a comment at the bottom.)
Many a times we come across the term called criminal trial. In general parlance, we understand trial means that a person is facing a case in court of law. But generally people are not aware of the process of criminal trial in India. So here is the procedure for criminal trial that generally takes place in India.
Types of Criminal Trials
Before we proceed further, we must note that according to Criminal Procedure Code, criminal trial can be of tree types namely Trial in Warrant cases, Trial in Summon Cases and Summery Trial
Trial in Warrant Cases
Warrant cases are those cases in which an offence attracts a penalty of imprisonment for more than seven years and it includes offences punishable with death and life imprisonment. In such cases, the trial starts either by filing of FIR or by filing a complaint before a magistrate. And if the magistrate finds that the case relates to an offence carrying a punishment for more than two years, the case is sent to the sessions court for trial.
Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly states that the session court can not take cognizance of any offence unless the case has been sent to it by a magistrate. The process of sending it to sessions court is generally called committing it to sessions court.
Trial in Summon Cases
A summon case is a case which is not a warrant case. So in simple words, those cases in which an offence is punishable with an imprisonment of less than two years is a summon case. In this case, one must understand that if a magistrate, after looking into the case, thinks that a case is not a summon case, he may convert it into a warrant case. In respect of summons cases, there is no need to frame a charge. The court gives substance of the accusation, which is called “notice”, to the accused when the person appears in pursuance to the summons.
Summary Trial
Case of offenses punishable with an imprisonment of not more than six months can be tried in a summary way. It is also to be noted that if the case has been tried in a summary way, a person can not be awarded a punishment of imprisonment for more than three months.
Pretrial stages
Registration of FIR
FIR stands for first information report which is lodged under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The FIR is only the basis information which is made available to the police when a cognizable offence takes place. FIR is the first stage from which a criminal case takes the birth.
Investigation
FIR in a criminal case leads to investigation in the case. Investigation leads an investigating officer to reach to a conclusion whether a chargesheet has to be filed or a closure report has to be filed in the case. If the investigation result in discovery of an offence, a chargesheet is filed, otherwise a closure report is filed before the concerned court.
Trial
If the investigating officer finds out that a case is fit for trial then he files a chargesheet in the case.
Filing of the charge sheet
The charge sheet is the brief summary of how an offence had been committed? What was the role of each person who was involved in the crime and the sections under which the investigating officer had charged all the accused. The charge sheet also contains the names of the person who were investigated but could not be charged due to lack of evidence in the eyes of the investigating agency. Filing of the charge sheet generally means that the investigation in the case is over and now the court has to consider the evidence collected by the investigating agency. It is to be noted, that if during the course of trial, some new facts come to the light, the agency may file additional charge sheets.
Framing of charges/Serving the Notice
if it’s a summon case, a simple notice is given and a response is sought from the accused. But in warrant cases, the court frames the charges.
Framing of charges mean that the court looks into the evidence collected by the investigating agency and applies its mind so as to what are the charges under which an accused has to be booked. For example, the police has filed a chargesheet accusing a person of murder under section 302, but the court deems it proper to charge the person for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304. At this stage, if an accused pleads guilty then the court will apply its judicial mind and decide the punishment accordingly. And if the accused pleads not guilty, he is informed the charges under which he would be required to face the trial.
On the other hand, if the judge finds that no offence against an accused is made out, the accused is discharged from the case. The court has to apply its mind and record the reasons for discharging an accused.
Recording of the Prosecution Evidence
After the charges have been framed against an accused, the prosecution is required to produce before the court, all the evidence collected by the investigating agency. It is to be noted that when the investigating agency produces the evidence before the court, the evidence has to be supplemented with the statement of the prosecution witnesses (PWs). The process of recording the statement of PWs is called Examination-in-Chief. The evidence which is brought before the court and which the court considers is called “Exhibit” . The witnesses brought by the prosecution are expected to support the case presented by the prosecution and if they fail to do so, they are declared hostile and the prosecution may request the court not to rely on the statement of such a witness.
In case the witness supports the case of the prosecution, the defense is entitled to cross examine the witness so that they could find out the discrepancies in the statement of the witness concerned. If the defense succeeds in finding the discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, they may ask the court not to rely on the statement of the said witness.
Statement of the accused
Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure code empowers the court to ask for an explanation from the accused if any. The basic idea is to give an opportunity of being heard to an accused an explain the facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. Under this section, an accused shall not be administered an oath and the accused may refuse to answer the questions so asked. The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence for or against him.
Evidence of Defense
After the statement of the accused is over, the court applies its mind and tries to find out if the accused has committed any offence or not. If the court reaches the conclusion that no offence has been committed by the accused, he is acquitted. It must be noted that while acquitting an accused, the judge is expected to give reasons for acquitting the accused.
In cases of accused not being acquitted by the court, the defense is given an opportunity to present any defense evidence in support of the accused. The defense can also produce its witnesses and the said witnesses are cross examined by the prosecution. In India, generally the defense does not provide defense evidence as the criminal justice system in India puts burden of proof on the prosecution to prove that a person is guilty of an offence beyond the reasonable doubt.
Final Arguments of both the sides
Once the defense evidence of the accused is over, the prosecution presents its final arguments. In final arguments, the prosecution generally sum up its case against the accused. After the final arguments of the prosecution are over, the defense also present its final arguments. After the final arguments of both the sides are over, the court generally reserve its judgment.
Delivery of Judgment
After application of mind, the judge delivers a final judgment holding an accused guilty of offence or acquitting him of the particular offence. If a person is acquitted, the prosecution is given time to file an appeal and if a person is convicted of a particular offence, then date is fixed for arguments on sentence.
Arguments on sentence
Once a person is convicted of an offence, both the sides present their arguments on what punishment should be awarded to an accused. This is generally done in cases which are punished with death or life imprisonment.
Judgment with punishment
After the arguments on sentence, the court finally decides what should be the punishment for the accused. While punishing a person, the courts consider various theories of punishment like reformative theory of punishment and deterrent theory of punishment. Court also considers the age, background and history of an accused and the judgment is pronounced accordingly.
Court 2/2. Soni Sori v/s State of Chhatisgarh (Issue of a tribal girl who alleged torture in the hands of Chattisgarh police)
Court 4/6 Taj Mahal Issue
Court 5/101 Bombay Blast-93.
Court 6/1. Devender pal singh bhullar v/s NCT Delhi
Court 7/102. Death of 25 chained inmates in Tamilnadu
