Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
The Supreme Court has followed or relied on the modified principles in subsequent cases, indicating that the original ratio of Bipin Shantilal Panchal is effectively overruled or no longer authoritative.
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["MOHANASUNDHARAM.G vs THE STATE REP.BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE - Madras"]- ["SUNDARAN vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["MOHMADSULEMAN REHMATKHAN PATHAN vs HIMANTBHAI NARANBHAI PANCHAL-PROP.M R INDUSTRIES - Gujarat"]- ["M/S PVR INOX LIMITED vs M/S SRI THENANDAL FILMS - Madras"]- ["AMOL S/O ASHOK BELSARE vs STATE OF MAH. THR. PS OLD CITY AKOLA - Bombay"]- ["M/s. T.M. Shroff vs The Competent Authority Mumbai - Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property"]- ["M/s. Maganlal Chaturbhai & Co. vs The Competent Authority Mumbai - Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property"]- ["M/s. Maganlal Chaturbhai & Co. vs The Competent Authority Mumbai - Appellate Tribunal for Forfeited Property"]- ["MOHMADSULEMAN REHMATKHAN PATHAN Vs OMPRAKASH RAJUBHAI PATEL-PROP. OF ANNAPURNA ENGINEERING WORKS - Gujarat"]- ["MOHMADSULEMAN REHMATKHAN PATHAN Vs PRAVINBHAI ATMARAM PANCHAL - Gujarat"]- ["MOHMADSULEMAN REHMATKHAN PATHAN vs MAHENDRABHAI PRASOTHAMBHAI PADHIYAR - Gujarat"]- ["MOHMADSULEMAN REHMATKHAN PATHAN vs KANAYALAL ENGINEERING THROUGH RAMESHBHAI PATEL - Gujarat"]- ["MOHMADSULEMAN REHMATKHAN PATHAN Vs CHANDRESHBHAI NATWARLAL TRIVEDI - Gujarat"]- ["AMOL S/O ASHOK BELSARE vs STATE OF MAH. THR. PS OLD CITY AKOLA - Bombay"]
In the realm of Indian criminal procedure, few judgments have shaped trial practices as profoundly as Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001 (3) SCC 1). But a pressing question lingers among legal practitioners: whether Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat is overruled as of now? This blog post dives deep into the current status, examining reaffirmations, criticisms, and recent developments to provide clarity.
Whether you're a lawyer navigating evidence objections or a law student studying procedural law, understanding the Panchal judgment's validity is crucial. We'll explore its principles, subsequent case law, and why it remains influential despite debates.
Delivered by the Supreme Court in 2001, the Bipin Shantilal Panchal case addressed how trial courts should handle objections to evidence admissibility during proceedings. Key directives include:
The rationale? Immediate rulings on objections often derail trials, while deferral ensures comprehensive evidence recording. This approach has been cited extensively in criminal and civil matters.
Far from being overruled, the Panchal judgment continues to guide courts. For instance:
Other cases echo this:
At this juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another). Jeyarathnam VS Samuel Nickson - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3044
Similarly, in a 2021 matter involving secondary evidence of a Will, courts relied on Panchal alongside 2021-10-SCC-598, permitting photocopies subject to proof. This shows Panchal's ongoing relevance in evidence marking. Jeyarathnam VS Samuel Nickson - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3044
Despite its stature, Panchal isn't without controversy. Critics, including amici curiae and scholars, argue it prolongs trials by allowing irrelevant or prejudicial material on record, potentially harming the accused. Sundaran S/o Raghavan vs State of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1065
Some judgments express reservations:
Therefore, this Court is of opinion that the view in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 should not be considered as binding. SUNDARAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57528
Here, a court suggested non-binding status in a specific context, noting predominant trial practices follow Panchal but advocating flexibility. Another High Court referenced it while discussing archaic practices of halting trials for objections. AMOL S/O ASHOK BELSARE vs STATE OF MAH. THR. PS OLD CITY AKOLA
In Hemendra Rasiklal Ghia v. Subodh Mody and related cases, Panchal was invoked to defer admissibility to the final stage under Order XIV Rule 4 CPC and Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Prakash Oil Corporation VS Brij Kishan - 2019 Supreme(Del) 1949
These critiques highlight practical issues like extended cross-examinations but do not constitute overruling—merely calls for nuance.
As of 2024, no Supreme Court pronouncement explicitly overrules Panchal. Courts routinely apply it:
Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material... subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. Prakash Oil Corporation VS Brij Kishan - 2019 Supreme(Del) 1949
Post-2020 judgments, including those on default bail and challan filings, indirectly affirm Panchal by adhering to uninterrupted evidence collection. No legislative reforms via CrPC amendments have altered it either.
While debates persist on trial length and prejudice, Panchal's core—deferring objections—endures.
The Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat judgment has not been overruled. It remains binding precedent for handling evidence objections in Indian trials. Reaffirmed in multiple Supreme Court and High Court decisions, it promotes procedural efficiency despite scholarly pushback. Sundaran S/o Raghavan vs State of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1065
Key Takeaways:- Panchal principles are followed in recent cases without reversal.- Isolated non-binding views exist but lack authoritative weight.- Adhere to it until explicit Supreme Court modification.
Disclaimer: This post provides general information based on case law up to October 2023 and available sources. It is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance. Legal landscapes evolve; check latest judgments.
References:- HARISCHANDRA BIYANI VS STOCK HOLDING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. - Dishonour Of Cheque (2005), Sundaran S/o Raghavan vs State of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 1065, A. Ravishankar Prasad Director, M/s. Prasad Properties and Investments P Ltd. VS State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bangalore - 2011 0 Supreme(Mad) 3983, ABID HUSSEN ABDULKARIM SHAIKH VS STATE OF GUJARAT - 2010 0 Supreme(Guj) 175, SUNDARAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 57528, AMOL S/O ASHOK BELSARE vs STATE OF MAH. THR. PS OLD CITY AKOLA, JEYARATHNAM S/O.APPADURAI vs SAMUEL NICKSON S/O.JEBAVEERA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 17368, Jeyarathnam VS Samuel Nickson - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 3044, Biswanath Roy Chowdhury S/o Late Barindra Roy Chowdhury VS State Of Assam - 2022 Supreme(Gau) 721, Raja Bhaiya Singh VS State of M. P. - 2021 Supreme(MP) 226, Prakash Oil Corporation VS Brij Kishan - 2019 Supreme(Del) 1949, Molvi Allah Ditta VS State th. SHO P/S Surankote - 2018 Supreme(J&K) 458, N. Sasikala VS Assistant Director - 2017 Supreme(Mad) 3820
#BipinPanchal #EvidenceLaw #SupremeCourt
Shantilal Panchal, which has been overruled. ... Accordingly, the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal shall stand modified. ... Therefore, it is submitted that the rule in Bipin Shantilal Panchal requires reconsideration. Further, it was held that the view in Bipin Shantilal Panchal should not be considered as binding. ... The State of Andhra Pradesh an....
In Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. ... Therefore, this Court is of opinion that the view in Bipin Shantilal Panchal [Bipin Shantilal Panchalv. StateofGujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1] should not be considered as binding. ... It was pointed out by the learned Amici Curiae that the practice adopted predominantly in all trials is guided by the decision of this Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State#H....
In Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. ... Therefore, this Court is of opinion that the view in Bipin Shantilal Panchal [Bipin Shantilal Panchalv. StateofGujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1] should not be considered as binding. ... It was pointed out by the learned Amici Curiae that the practice adopted predominantly in all trials is guided by the decision of this Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State#H....
It clearly appears that the facts of the case are clearly covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal 's case (supra). Therefore, we shall decide as to whether the order of the learned Addl. ... 5.1 In this regard, it would be apt to refer to a celebrated decision of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1529/2001, wherein, the Court has held as under: “10. ... Not by a whisper, it could be....
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 (10) SCC 598 to substantiate his argument that the Judgment rendered in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. ... In particular he referred to paragraph No.14 of the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and Another case referred to supra for the said proposition. 6. ... State of Andhra Pradesh and Others reported in 2021 (10) SCC 598. Relyi....
Shantilal Panchal v. ... The articulation in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. ... It would be apposite to note the observations of the Supreme Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. ... Panchal v. ... Rao, APP for Non-Applicant/State.
At this juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another). ... The learned counsel for the petitioner would also further submit that, the very Ruling in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another) has no application to this case. ... Accordingly, the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal #H....
At this juncture, it is useful to refer the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 2001-3-SCC-1 (Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs. State of Gujarat and another). ... Bipin Bihari Behera) and AIR-2020-SC-2666 (Dhanpat V. Sheo Ram (Deceased) through L.Rs), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the Bipin Shantilal Panchal judgments (cited supra). ... The learned counsel for the petitioner would also further submit that, the very Ruling in 2001-3-SCC-1 (#H....
Bipin Shantilal Panchal, a Show Cause Notice No. ... Bipin Shantilal Panchal (hereinafter referred to as Affected Person No.1 or Dr. ... Bipin Shantilal Panchal, which gives a strong reason to believe that despite insufficient income, the APs acquired the properties out of the illegal money provided by the Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal. 44. ... Bipin Sha....
Bipin Shantilal Panchal, a Show Cause Notice No. ... Bipin Shantilal Panchal (hereinafter referred to as Affected Person No.1 or Dr. ... Bipin Shantilal Panchal, which gives a strong reason to believe that despite insufficient income, the APs acquired the properties out of the illegal money provided by the Dr. Bipin Shantilal Panchal. 44. ... Bipin Sha....
8. Mr. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the following case laws, in support of his submissions: vs. Abul Khair Molla and anr. (2012) 2 C. Cr.L.R. (Cal) 628, i) Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat, 2001 Crl.L.J. 1254,
L. J. 1652 [AIR 1996 S.C. 2897= 1996 AIR SCW 734 = 1996 CRI. In "Dr.Bipin Shantilal Panchal, v. State of Gujarat", 1996 CRI.
Whenever an objection is raised during evidence-taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment. 8. The question of how to conduct proceedings in a trial when documents are objected to on the ground of admissibility and mode of proof is a vexed question inasmuch as dealing with objections at that stage could con....
“It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. 8. In AIR 2001 SC 1158 case titled Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat
It is an archaic practise that during the evidence collecting stage, whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in evidence the Court does not proceed further without passing order on such objection. 26. Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat, (2001) 3 SCC 1 wherein it has been held as follows:-
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
