Criminal Law

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

Creeping up an escalating liability to Chairpersons of large conglomerates/companies for cheques issued in day-to-day affairs of the business of a company would unfairly and unnecessarily expand the provisions of vicarious liability under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act – Yashovardhan Birla Vs. Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd. & Ors

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

The fundamental guidelines for making a statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code are outlined by the Honourable Supreme Court in Premchand v. State of Maharashtra at Paragraph 15. “a. Section 313, Cr. P.C. [clause (b) of sub-section 1] is a valuable safeguard in the trial process for the accused to establish his innocence; b. Section 313, which is intended to ensure a direct dialogue between the court and the accused, casts a mandatory duty on the court to question the accused generally on the case for the purpose of enabling him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him; c. when questioned, the accused may not admit his involvement at all and choose to flatly deny or outrightly repudiate whatever is put to him by the court; d. the accused may even admit or own incriminating circumstances adduced against him to adopt legally recognized defenses; e. an accused can make a statement without fear of being cross-examined by the prosecution or the latter having any right to cross-examine him; f. the explanations that an accused may furnish cannot be considered in isolation but have to be considered in conjunction with the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and, therefore, no conviction can be premised solely on the basis of the section 313 statement(s); g. statements of the accused in course of examination under Section 313, since not on oath, do not constitute evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act, yet the answers given are relevant for finding the truth and examining the veracity of the prosecution case; h. the statement(s) of the accused cannot be dissected to rely on the inculpatory part and ignore the exculpatory part and has/have to be read in whole, inter alia, to test the authenticity of the exculpatory nature of admission; and i. If the accused takes a defense and proffers any alternate version of events or interpretation, the court has to carefully analyze and consider his statements; j. any failure to consider the accused’s explanation of incriminating circumstances in a given case may vitiate the trial and/or endanger the conviction.”

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

Honourable Supreme Court in State Bank of India vs Rajesh Agarwal and connected cases has held that a) At the outset, we clarify that principles of natural justice are not applicable at the stage of reporting a criminal offence, which is a consistent position of law adopted by this Court. b) In Union of India v. W N Chadha, a two-judge bench of this Court held that that providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused in every criminal case before taking any action against them would “frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation lifeless, absurd, and self-defeating.” c) Again, a two-judge bench of this Court in Anju Chaudhary v. State of UP has reiterated that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not provide for right of hearing before the registration of an FIR"

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

Power u/s 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the magistrate or the sessions judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence laid before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner. 106 . Thus we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence laid before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much strong evidence that near probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power u/S 319 CrPC”.

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

The involvement of a person in any one or more of certain processes or activities connected with the proceeds of crime, namely, concealment, possession, acquisition, use, projecting as untainted property, or claiming as untainted property, constitutes the offence of money-laundering – All the places where any one or more of these processes or activities take place are the places where the offence of money-laundering has been committed – Triable by the special court(s) constituted for the area(s) in which the offence of money-laundering has been committed

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

The High Court in criminal revision against conviction is not supposed to exercise the jurisdiction alike to the appellate Court and the scope of interference in revision is extremely narrow. Section 397 CrPC vests jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. The object of the provision is to set right a patent defect or an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to be well­ founded error which is to be determined on the merits of individual case. While considering the same, the revisional Court does not dwell at length upon the facts and evidence of the case to reverse those findings. Malkeet Singh Gill v. State of Chhattisgarh

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ; Section 313 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2 , it was held thus: “145. It is not necessary for us to multiply authorities on this point as this question now stands concluded by several decisions of this Court. It is mandatory that the circumstances which were not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, shall have to be completely excluded from consideration.”

Legal Updates on Criminal Law – By Criminal Lawyer in High Court, Hyderabad

Compromise or Compounding or Quashing or Acquittal of Accused in a predicate offence does not affect the investigations of Enforcement Directorate. Bombay High Court in Babulal Verma and Ors. Vs Enforcement Directorate and Ors.{MANU/MH/0835/2021} has held as follows:1)The language of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 (“PMLA”)make it absolutely clear that, the investigation of an offence under Section 3, which is punishable under Section 4, is not dependent upon the ultimate result of the Predicate/Scheduled Offence. In other words, it is a totally independent investigation asdefined and contemplated under Section 2(na), of an offence committed under Section 3 of the said Act.2)PMLA is a special statute enacted with a specific object i.e.,to track and investigate cases of money-laundering. Therefore, after lodgementof Predicate/Scheduled Offence, its ultimate result will not have any bearing on the lodgement/investigation of a crime under the PMLA and the offence under the PMLA will survive and stand alone on its own. 3)Predicate/Scheduled Offence is necessary only for registration of crime/launching prosecution under PMLA and once a crime is registered under the PMLA, then the Enforcement Directoratehas to take it to its logical end, as contemplated under Section 44 of the Act.4)Section 44(b) only provides for filing of a complaint or submission of a closure report by the Investigating Agency under PMLA and none else.5)........It is clear that, even if the Investigating Agency investigating a Scheduled /Predicated Offence has filed closure report in it and the Court of competent jurisdiction has accepted it, it will not wipe out or cease to continue the investigation of Enforcement Directorate in the offence of money-laundering being investigated by it. The investigation of Enforcement Directorate will continue on its own till it reaches the stage as contemplated under Section 44 of the PMLA.