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

2019 Supreme(Bom) 148

S.M.MODAK
Manikrao – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Rohit Vaidya, Anand Parchure, M.J. Khan.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Modak, J.

1. Adjudicating rights and liabilities of litigants is the prerogative of Courts. Always, there are more than two parties before the Court. Be it civil litigation or criminal prosecution. One party asserts and another party denies and in this process of churning, what results is the final outcome. We call it as outcome of justice. In this process, a churning, Court acts as a third person. But, some time there are occasion for the Court to relinquish their job of independent third party adjudicator and to become law settler. Such occasion arises when wrong/sins are committed in the proceedings of court and before the open eyes of the Court. And for maintaining the justice delivery system in fact, Court on its own is required to set the law into motion.

2. One of such occasion is when the witness attended the Court proceeding for giving evidence, tells one fact at one time and totally inconsistent fact at other time. With this somersault by this witness, Court resorts to its jurisdiction of punishing perjurer.

3. There was such an occasion for a Special Judge (under the Prevention of Corruption Act), Akola. He dealt with a Special Case No. 4/1999 against one Sam































































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