A long time ago, I had a copy of A judgment by Hon'ble Monjula Bose, Calcutta High Court 

namely : in the matter of Joseph Martin ...

I have dopne a search through your site and could not find it, though, I know through personal knowledge that it exists.

Will you kindly update this and include this important judgement ?

Congratulations on a very good site.

my name is john paul and i am respondent no 2 in the reported judgement passed by hon'ble bombay high court bench at aurangabad on 25/02/2010 posted by yourself namely sahednnisa d/o bakruddin v/s state of maharshtra. i had appeared in the said case as party in person and studied the whole case by surfing your website and i succeeded in the said case therefore i am very thankfull to you

hi i would like to report a judgment which is not complete 
its initial paragraphs 1 to 24 are not there and it starts from para 25 of the judgment


G. Amsaveni, G. Dhanraj And V. ... vs P. Kanakaraj on 15 March, 2007 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1410140/

Please correct the document and provide full context

Can Finance Secretary Chandigarh as secretary Agriculture Have power to cancel the auction platforms alloted by Allotment committee included SDM as joint secretary state agricultural marketting board,Chairman market committee chandigarh,independant director appointed by chandigarh administration as directed by D. C. as Secretary State Agricultural Marketing Board (SAMB)

(iii) Clubbing of other cognizable offences would not be permissible to evade the provisions of section 195 of the Code; Barappa v State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 Crimes 575 (Kant) 


(iii) Section 340 Cr P prescribed the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under section 195 Cr P while under section 195 Cr P it is open to the Court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender Provisions under section 195 Cr P are mandatory and no Court can take COGNIZANCE of offences referred to therein; MS Ahlawat v State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 168: 2000 Cr LJ 388 (SC) 

An order of DISMISSAL under section 203 of the Code is no bar to the entertainment of a SECOND COMPLAINT on the same facts but it will be entertained only in exceptional circumstances; Mohinder Singh v State (Chandigarh Admn), (1997) 3 Crimes 142 (P&H) 

(i) A summoning order passed by Magistrate under section 204 of the Code cannot necessarily be treated to be an interlocutory order thereby completely barring a revision against the same in view of the bar under section 397 (2) of the Code The test to examine whether such an order is an interlocutory order or not is that if the decision against such an order finally terminates the criminal proceedings, it would not be treated as an interlocutory order On the other hand if decision given either way would still allow the proceedings to go on then the order would not be a final order but an interlocutory order and then a revision against such an order would be barred under section 397(2) of the Code; Umakant Panday v A JM, (1997) 2 Crimes 27 (All) 

(ii) Even after issue of process in summons case the accused can plead of ABSENCE of any triable case against him and the Magistrate, on being satisfied on reconsideration of the complaint, has DISCRETIONary power to order, dropping of the proceedings against the accused; Awadhesh Prasad Singh alias Awadhesh Prasad Sharma v State of Bihar, (1997) 3 Crimes 70 (Pat) 

(iii) Accused are responsible for the conduct of business the necessary requirement issue process against the company is fulfilled Rejection of recalling of process issued against petitioner is PROPER; Orient Syntex Ltd v Besant Capital Tech Ltd, 2000 Cr LJ 210 (Bom) 


Filing of complaint case and FIR lodged simultaneously Magistrate empowered to stay complaint call for report on POLICE officer and tried together was PROPER; Birendra Kumar v State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 145 (Pat) 

(i) Where there is a communality of purpose or design when there is continuity of action then all those persons involved can be accused of the same or different offences committed in course of same transaction If such two diametrically opposite versions are put to joint trial the confusion which can cause in the trial could be incalcullable Permission to joint trial illegal; Balbir v State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 11: 2000 Cr LJ 169 (SC) 

(ii) The two trials were separately conducted one after the other by the same Court before the same judge and judgment in both cases were separately pronounced on the same day No doubt the session judge should take care of that he would confine his judgment in one case only to the evidence adduced in the case The public prosecutor who prosecuted one case should avoid prosecution in other case Permission for joint trial not legal; Balbir v State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 11: 2000 Cr LJ 169 (SC) 

P&H Highcourt or Hon. Supreme Court's judgements which support -
Punjab agricultural produce marketing act 1961
Punjab agricultural produce marketing Rules 1962 

The bank account of the accused or any of his relation to `PROPERty' within the meaning of section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code and POLICE officer in course of investigation can seize the operation of said account if such assets have direct link with the commission of offence for which the POLICE officer is investigating into; State of Maharashtra v Tapas D Neogy, 1999 (7) SCC 685: 1999 (5) Scale 613: 1999 (7) JT 92: 1999 (8) Supreme 149 

Under trial prisoners are not released on BAIL and remained in jail for 6 months Release of undertrial due to DELAY in trial is PROPER; RD Upadhayaya v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (1) Scale 139 

The Court MUST have specific facts and satisfied that counter petitioner is sure to 
commit offences mentioned if he is not kept in custody; Gopalalnchari v State of Kerala, 1981 SCCr R 338 

It is as clear as day that before taking steps for ARREST the Magistrate MUST have REASONs to fear the Commission of breach of the peace and it MUST appear to him that such breach of peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate ARREST of the alleged person It is INCUMBENT upon the Magistrate to record an order in writing showing satisfaction for the steps taken under the proviso to section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Dibakar Naik v Puspalata Patel, (1997) 3 Crimes 107 (Ori) 

(1) Order under SECTION 144 IS amenable to writ jurisdiction on violation of any Fundamental RIGHT; Gulam Abbas v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 2198 : (1981) Cr LJ 1835 

(2) As far as possible CUSTOMARY RIGHT of a community should not be disturbed; Gulam Abbas v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 2198: (1981) Cr LJ 1835 


i) The determination of RIGHTs by the competent Court of the parties spoken of in SECTION 146 has not necessarily to be a final determination, it may be even tentative at the interim stage when the competent Court passes an order of interim injunction or appoints a receiver in respect of subject matter of dispute pending final decision in the suit; Dharampal v Smt Ramshri, 1993 (1) Crimes 304 (SC) 

(ii) Passing of order without PROPER enquiry is nullity; CKP Mennon v KP Sulaiman, 2000 Cr LJ 221 (Mad) 

(i) The Magistrate has no power to take COGNIZANCE of an offence on basis of private complaint that resulted in submission of the report under section 173 consequent upon reference under section 156 (3) when once he has accepted negative POLICE report and closed the proceedings; S D Soni v State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC) 

(ii) Rejection of prosecution case on ground of illegality or irregularity not PROPER; Leela Ram v State of Haryana, 1999 (8) JT 274: 1999 (8) Supreme 631 

(iii) Conclusion of Court can not be allowed to base solely on the probity of investigation; State of Karnataka v K Yarappa Reddy, 1994 (8) SCC 715: 1999 (6) Scale 330: 1999 (8) JT 10 

  …law courts exist for the society and in the event  of  there  being a question posed in  the  matter  of interpretation of  a  beneficial   piece  of legislation, question  of  interpreting the same with a  narrow  pedantic approach  would  not  be justified.  (SECRETARY, H.S.E.B.Vs.SURESH & ORS ETC.  ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT:04/04/1999 ) 


      …It is to be seen that the procedure is the hand-maid for Justice; and unless the procedure touches upon jurisdictional issue, it should be moulded to subserve substantial justice. Therefore, technicalities would not stand in the way to subserve substantive justice. (AIR 1994 S C 1699 Ramankutty Guptan  v. Avara)

….The High Courts  exercise  control over Government functioning and ensure obedience of rules and law by  enforcing  PROPER, FAIR and just  performance  of  duty. Where the Government or any authority passes an order  which is  contrary  to  rules	 or  law  it  becomes  amenable	  to correction  by the courts in exercise of writ  jurisdiction.


.  It shakes the confidence and faith of the society in the system and is prone to encouraging even the honest and sincere to  deviate from their path.  It is the responsibility of the High Court as  custodian  of the Constitution to  maintain	 the  social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of  justice and  refusing  to interfere where it is against the  social interest and public good.
(STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 	Vs. PRABHU  1994 SCC  (2) 481  )

.. It is time that the derelicts are also held ACCOUNTABLE and liable for the loss of public money due to their lapses.
   
Governments being the largest litigants, radical improvement is needed in the functioning of their machinery by reducing frivolous litigation and ensuring PROPER conduct of the necessary litigation. Unless the desirable steps in this behalf are taken in the RIGHT earnest, any number of seminars and conferences to device means for reducing the backlog in Courts is an exercise in futility and the resolutions made therein, are empty slogans.
(AIR 1995 S C 2237 Union of India v. Rahul Rasgotra )

The Court cannot be blind to the fact that even after fifty years of our independence our territorial integrity is not fully secure. Administrative Liquidation was certainly not a course open to them.( People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India and Another*  	*(1997) 3 SCC 433) ) 

       That the petitioner was subjected to wholly unwarranted humiliation and indignity which cannot be done to any citizen of lndia irrespective of whether he was accused of minor offence or major offence… The duty to impose a restraint should not be utilised as an opportunity for exposing an under trial prisoner to public ridicule and humiliation. 
Life, liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Art. 21 include life with dignity and liberty with dignity. LIBERTY MUST mean freedom from humiliations and indignities at the hands of the authorities to whom the custody of a person may pass temporarily or otherwise under the law of the land    
(Ravikant Patil vs The State of Maharashtra & others  *1991 Cr.L.J. 2344 (Bombay))

On an allegation that the petitioners have been indulging in anti-social activities without mentioning the PERIOD during which those activities took place no person can reasonably put up a defence. If the activities had happened 10 years ago, he could easily persuade the authorities to the effect that there has been a lull in those activities on his part and no order of externment is called for. We are also of the opinion that the allegations of beating people, causing loss to the people’s PROPERties are somewhat vague. Such order of externmemt is illegal and liable to be set aside.  
(Prakash Sitaram Shelar, vs The State of Maharashtra & others*  1991 Cr.LJ. 1251 (Bombay))

NATURAL JUSTICE requires that the person affected should have notice of the relevant material on which the authority concerned bases its conclusion. (Sh. Rambhai alias Ramlo Khimchand . .vs The State of Gujarat & anothers* *1991 Cr.L.J. 3159 (Gujrat) )

       Even in the life of the criminal or habitual offender, time may come where he starts living a peaceful life. When according to POLICE reports, at a later stage the petitioner has confined his activity to his profession of goldsmith and the report further indicated that except that profession he did not take interest in any other activity. Therefore, the POLICE surveillance in the case of the petitioner has seriously encroached upon the privacy of the petitioner, and his fundamental RIGHT of the personal Iiberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of the movement guaranteed by Article 19(1) (d). (Moti Sunar alias Moti Lal vs State of U.P.& others. . *1997 Cr.L.J; 2260 (Allahabad) ) 

    In both the situations, some inquiry is necessary to ascertain whether the report submitted by. the Station Officer required opening of History Sheet or not. It is not enough to put a BLANKET-SEAL on the report of the Station Officer. (Sunil Kumar Vs Superintendent of POLICE, Ballia and others * *1997 Cr.L.J. 3201 (Allahabad))

      Thus where discrimination was played by POLICE authorities in permitting the respondent-association to take its religious procession through a prominent centre in the town while restricting the petitioner-association from doing the same on the ground that it would lead to law and order problem; the said action of the POLICE authorities would be imPROPER. Both the associations are entitled-to take their processions through that prominent center and it - is the DUTY of the POLICE Authorities to tackle with the law and order problem (Gehohe-E-Miran Shah vs The Secretary, Home Department,.Govt. of A.P. and others *1993 Cr.L.J. 406 (AP.)) 

..
1.	An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the ARREST. These protections from power MUST be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) and enforced strictly.   

  
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the ARRESTed person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.	.

( Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others *1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 / (1994) 4SCC 260 AIR 1994 SC 1349  )
                  .. every third day, the detainee should be medically examined and such medical reports should be 	entered in the Station House Diary;
.. The Officer in charge of the concerned POLICE Station should provide paper and pen to the detainee if so demanded for writing complaint and the Officer in charge of the concerned POLICE Station should open the complaint is found in the complaint box, the officer in charge of the POLICE Station should' produce such complaining detainee to the Magistrate immediately along with his complaint and the concerned Magistrate would pass appropriate orders in the light of the complaint made for medical examination, treatment, aid or assistance, as the 	case may warrant;

(vii)	no female person shall be detained or Arrested without the PRESENCE of lady constable and in no case, after sun-set and before sun-rise;   
(Christian Community Welfare Council of India and another vs 
Government of Maharastra & another* 1995 Cr.L.J. 4223 Bombay)) 

          The Supreme Court on handcuffing of prisoners issued the following 	directions: 
We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or undertrial - while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. The POLICE and the jail authorities, on their own shall have NO AUTHORITY to direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back… Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any rank of POLICE in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable under the CONTEMPT of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. 
(In re: M.P. Dwivedi and others* *1996 Cr.L.J. 1670  )                            
…The Arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation…. render him liable to be punished for CONTEMPT of court and the proceedings for CONTEMPT of court may be instituted in any, High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. "The courts have the obligation to satisfy the 
social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.  A court of law cannot 
close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities.  Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim	civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family.
 (D.K. Basu vs State of W.B.*  *(1997) 1 SCC 426)