Unaccounted cash amount is not legally enforciable debt

Bombay High Court held in Sanjay Mishra  v  Kanishka Kapoor @ Nikki and Another 2009 AllMR(Cr) 1080 that the unaccounted cash amount  can not be said to be a legally recoverable debt.

Legal Practitioners Bill. 2010

Legal Practitioners (Regulation and Maintenance of Standards in Profession, Protecting the Interest of Clients and Promoting the Rule of Law) Bill, 2010.

Stamp Paper purchased more than six months prior to the proposed date of Execution

Thiruvengada Pillai v Navaneethammal and Another 2008 (4) SCC 530

 The Indian Stamp Act, 1899 nowhere prescribes any expiry date for use of a stamp paper. Section 54 merely provides that a person possessing a stamp paper for which he has no immediate use (which is not spoiled or rendered unfit or useless), can seek refund of the value thereof by surrendering such stamp paper to the Collector provided it was purchased within the period of six months next preceding the date on which it was so surrendered. The stipulation of the period of six months prescribed in section 54 is only for the purpose of seeking refund of the value of the unused stamp paper, and not for use of the stamp paper. Section 54 does not require the person who has purchased a stamp paper, to use it within six months. Therefore, there is no impediment for a stamp paper purchased more than six months prior to the proposed date of execution, being used for a document.  (para 11)

Compounding of Cheque bounce cases guideline

Honble Supreme Court recently layed down procedure to compound the offences under the section 138 of NI Act in Damodar S. Prabhu  v  Sayed Babalal H. 2010 AIR(SC) 1907
Damodar S. Prabhu  v  Sayed Babalal H. 2010 AIR(SC) 1907

Object of Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act

The Supreme Court of India in Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd Vs. Galaxy Traders & Agencies Ltd & Ors. [(2001) 6 Supreme Court Cases 463] in paragraph 3 referred the object of section 138 of NI Act.

Cases Laws on Criminal Revisions

Cases Laws on Criminal Revisions

• K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1962 SC 1788 (Supreme Court 1962). Revision of acquittal by private party allowed, though State doesn’t appeal.
• Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1968 SC 733 (Supreme Court 1967). A non-interlocutory order (thus, a revisable order) is an order that finally decides the rights of the parties.
• Parmeshwari Devi v. State and Another, AIR 1977 SC 403 (Supreme Court 1976).  An order regarding a third party is not interlocutory for that party and can be revised as he/she will have no chance to challenge it later.
• Ramu Alias Ram Kumar and Others v. Jagannath, 1994 (100) CrLJ 66 (Supreme Court 1992). An application for revision by a private complainant should be weighed with special care.
• George Thomas and Another v. State of Kerala, 1995 (101) CrLJ 3645 (Supreme Court 1994). High Court cannot enhance a sentence in revision merely because it looks at the evidence from a different angle.
• Ayodhya Dube and Others v. Ram Sumer Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1415 (Supreme Court 1981). Revision allowable for a judgment consisting of faulty reasoning and a lack of judicial approach.
• Sahab Singh and Others v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 1188 (Supreme Court 1990). An enhanced sentence in revisional court was overturned because the accused was not put on notice.
• Kishan Swaroop v. Government of Nct of Delhi, AIR 1998 SC 990 (Supreme Court 1997). The public prosecutor does not need to give permission for a private party file for revision in a criminal case.
• Krishnan and Another v. Krishnaveni and Another, AIR 1997 SC 987 (Supreme Court 1997). High Court can rule on a revision already ruled on by the Sessions Court.
• K.K. Patel and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another, 2000 (2) Crimes 314 (Supreme Court 2000). Jurisdictional questions are non-interlocutory.  Issues can be raised in revision that are not raised at trial.
• Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharastra, AIR 1978 SC 47 (Supreme Court 1977).  Jurisdictional orders are non-interlocutory.
• Vimal Singh v. Khuman Singh and Another, AIR 1998 SC 3380 (Supreme Court 1998). Revision disallowed because trial court did not disregard evidence.
• State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, Managing Directory, Western India Plywoods, AIR 1999 SC 981 (Supreme Court 1999). High Court is not to reappreciate evidence in revision.
• Gurshinder Singh v. Joga Singh and Another, 2000 (106) CrLJ 2778 (Supreme Court 1999). Petition for revision should not be summarily dismissed because it is filed by a private party (in this case, the victim’s brother).

• S. Abhoy Naidu v. R. Sundararajan and Others, 1994 (100) CrLJ 641 (Madras High Court 1992). Revisions only allowed when there is manifest illegality; revision petition denied.
• Smt. V. Ranganayaki and Etc v. V.J. Srinath and Another Etc, 2002 (108) CrLJ 154 (Andhra Pradesh High Court 2001). Revisions allowed when glaring defect in procedure or manifest error in point of law; one revision dismissed because no glaring defect, two others dismissed because they were interlocutory.
• Purshottam Vijay and Etc v. State and Others, 1982 (88) CrLJ 243 (Madhya Pradesh High Court 1981). “Even a stranger” can file a revision.
• Gopal Chandra Sahu and Gopal Sahu v. Choudhury Behera and Others, 1989 (95) CrLJ 1616 (Orissa High Court 1988).  Revisions can be invoked at different stages in a trial.

• Sankha Ram Sahu and Others v. Bura Takbi and Others, 1976 (82) CrLJ 1952 (Gauhati High Court 1976). Revision disallowed because party had right to appeal.
• Prabhudas Chaganlal and Another v. Babubhai Virabhai Miseria and Another, 1977 (83) CrLJ 1666 (Gujarat High Court 1976). High Court and Sessions Court may enhance sentence, suo moto or from private party.
• Chandrapal v. State and Others, 1979 (85) CrLJ 1437 (Allahabad High Court 1979).  Sessions Court does not have power to enhance sentence in revision.
• Mrs. Maninder Kaur v. State and Others, 2000 (106) CrLJ 3111 (Delhi High Court 1999). Private party may submit revision.

A WOMAN IN LIVE-IN RELATIONSHIP NOT ENTITLED FOR MAINTAINENCE UNLESS SHE FULLFILLS CERTAIN PARAMETERS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 2028-2029__OF 2010

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos.2273-2274/2010]

D. Velusamy                                         ..        Appellant

-versus-

D. Patchaiammal                                    ..      Respondent

JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.

1.    Leave granted.

2.    Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None has appeared for the

respondent although she has been served notice. We had earlier requested

Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior counsel to assist us as Amicus Curiae in

                                                                            2

the case, and we record our appreciation of Mr. Bhushan who was of

considerable assistance to us.

3.    These appeals have been filed against the judgment of the Madras

High Court dated 12.10.2009.

4.    The appellant herein has alleged that he was married according to the

Hindu Customary Rites with one Lakshmi on 25.6.1980.              Out of the

wedlock with Lakshmi a male child was born, who is now studying in an

Engineering college at Ooty. The petitioner is working as a Secondary

Teacher in Thevanga Higher Secondary School, Coimbatore.

5.    It appears that the respondent-D. Patchaiammal filed a petition under

Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2001 before the Family Court at Coimbatore

in which she alleged that she was married to the appellant herein on

14.9.1986 and since then the appellant herein and she lived together in her

father's house for two or three years. It is alleged in the petition that after

two or three years the appellant herein left the house of the respondent's

father and started living in his native place, but would visit the respondent

occasionally.

                                                                            3