SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1972 Supreme(SC) 208

H.R.KHANNA, J.M.SHELAT
State Of U. P. – Appellant
Versus
Kapil Deo Shukla – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Question 1? How to determine whether a long-delayed criminal trial should be quashed for fairness and not interfered with Art.136 judgments? Question 2? What is the proper balance between the right to a fair trial and the State’s interest in prosecuting public offences when witnesses are unavailable and document copies are not furnished? Question 3? What are the grounds on which High Courts or this Court may quash criminal proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution due to abuse of process or substantial injustice?

Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)

Question 1?

How to determine whether a long-delayed criminal trial should be quashed for fairness and not interfered with Art.136 judgments?

Question 2?

What is the proper balance between the right to a fair trial and the State’s interest in prosecuting public offences when witnesses are unavailable and document copies are not furnished?

Question 3?

What are the grounds on which High Courts or this Court may quash criminal proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution due to abuse of process or substantial injustice?


Judgment

SHELAT, J. :- These two appeals founded on special leave obtained from this Court, are directed against two orders passed by the High Court of Allahabad, dated March 16, 1967 and July 24, 1967 respectively. The first order was passed in Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 3334 of 1966 under Sec. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the Criminal case against the respondent pending before the Third Temporary Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad on charges under Ss. 408 and 477A of the Penal Code. A learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed that application and quashed the said proceedings as the State had failed to file any counter-affidavit against the statements made by the respondent in the said application. The second order was passed in an application filed by the State for recalling the said order. The same learned Judge dismissed that application observing that the State had had five months time to file a reply to the respondent s said application, that the State had even then failed to file its reply, that he had, therefore, in the absence of such a reply, allowed the application and that in those circumstances he found no reason to recall his
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top