LexLords NRI Legal Services Toronto By NRI Legal Services LexLords

In the statements recorded by the aforesaid two witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they had stated, that they had seen the appellant and the co-accused in the company of the deceased " Jayalakshmi. It embraces within itself all powers and authority in exercise of jurisdiction and taking of authoritative notice of the allegations made in the complaint or a police report or any information received that an offence has been committed.

The word cognizance occurring in various sections in the Code is a word of wide import. It is only part of a process of reaching a final conclusion; also there is no formal public declaration of the Judges' mind in open court and consequently there is no "judgment' which can be acted upon. Second judgment in the case of Anil Kumar referred to above is directly on the point. In the second case, the Judge has publicly declared his mind and cannot therefore change it without notice to the parties and without hearing them afresh when that is necessary; and if there is no change the judgment continues in force.

Act is a pre-condition for ordering investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3) of Cr. One provision is that it can be freely altered or amended or even changed completely without further formality, except notice to the parties and a rehearing on the point of change should that be necessary, provided it has not been signed. After the judgment has been delivered provision is made for review. Article 31(2) provides: For this reason there is a distinction between judgments which have not been delivered NRI legal services (sneak a peek at this website) and so have not become operative and those which have.

In the former case, the alteration is out of court. It is not a judicial act. Answering the question in the affirmative, the Court discussed the NRI legal services; website link, position in the following manner: For establishing the above circumstance, the prosecution NRI Legal Services had relied upon two witnesses, Shanmugam " PW6, and Mubarak " PW7. But after delivery the alteration cannot be made without notice to the parties and the proceeding must take place in open court, and if there is no alteration there is something which is final and conclusive and which can at once be acted upon.

The difference is this. It does not necessarily mean issuance of process. We are of the view, that the deposition at the hands of Shanmugam " PW6 and Mubarak " PW7, can be described as a matter of improper handling of the case, inasmuch as, both Shanmugam " PW6 and Mubarak " PW7 had also recorded their statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, affirming, that they had seen the appellant and the co-accused in the company of the deceased " Jayalakshmi. By change we mean an alteration of the decision and not merely the addition or subtraction of part of the reasoning.

The Attorney-General, while conceding that the word " compensation " taken by itself must mean a full and fair money equivalent, urged that, in the context of article 31(2) read with entry No. whether sanction under Section 19 of the P. even at pre-cognizance stage? 42 of List III of the Seventh Schedule, the term was not used in any rigid sense importing equivalence in value but had reference to what the legisla- ture might think was a proper indemnity for the loss sustained by the owner.

Another is that after signature L/B(D)2SCI-8 338 a review properly so called would lie in civil cases but none in criminal; but the review, when it lies, is only permitted on very narrow grounds. In the context of Sections 200, 202 and 203, the expression taking cognizance has been used in the sense of taking notice of the complaint or the first information report or the information that an offence has been committed on application of judicial mind.

In the one case, one cannot know, and it would be against public policy to enquire, whether the draft of a judgment is the final conclusion of the Judge or is only a tentative opinion subject to alteration and change. But in this case the mere fact that a Judge is dead and so cannot review his judgment does not affect the validity of the judgment which has already been delivered and has become effective. While recording their statements before the trial Court, Shanmugam " PW6 and Mubarak " PW7 resiled from the version indicated by them, to the investigating officer.

It is therefore apparent, that no last seen evidence, could be substantiated by the prosecution, during the course of the trial of the appellant. The next contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant was, on the third circumstantial evidence taking into consideration, namely, the last seen evidence. In that case, identical question had fallen for consideration viz. However, since the statement of the two prosecution witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not put to them, after they were declared hostile, and were subjected to cross-examination at the behest of the prosecution, we have no alternative, but to overlook the last seen evidence sought to be projected by the prosecution.