Calcutta High Court Judgments on Duty of Court

Print

  1. What could be called out from the above report that a criminal cases having a pre-dominant civil flavour stands on a different pedestal than the offences which are heinous and serious and have an impact on the society and cannot be said to be private-in-nature for the purpose of quashing the proceeding on the basis of compromise [Also available at 2015(1) CLJ (Cal) 284]
  2. It is well-settled that a Court of Appeal should not ordinarily interfere with the discretion exercised by the Courts below. It is not that every decision of the  Hon’ble Trial Court, which is brought in appeal, will be viewed from pedagogy as if the decision rendered, was of a subaltern nature [Also available at 2015(1) CLJ (Cal) 395]
  3. Since certainty and consistency are the bedrock of a mature judicial system, a legal pronouncement of a superior forum, in the hierarchical judicial structure in this country, when cited before an inferior forum is binding on the inferior forum, subject to the caveat that the authority of the superior forum is not per incuriam. A judgment can be said to have been rendered per incuriam – in ignorance of the law – and, therefore, having no binding value if such judgment is contrary to any statute or it is contrary to the judgment of a superior forum [Also available at 2015 (2) CLJ (Cal) 01]
  4. The learned Judge must apprise himself before concluding the guilt of an accused relying on certain facts and circumstances about the mandate of law which makes it obligatory on his part to put all the incriminating facts and circumstances appearing in the evidence against an accused in his examination under section 313 CrPC for his explanation, if any of them doing so, such circumstances cannot be relied upon. Of course, omission of putting any question with reference to any facts and circumstances appearing from the evidence is completely inconsequential when such omission does not occasion any prejudice to the accused and failure of justice.[Also avaiable at 2015 (2) Cr. L.J 365]
  5. The High Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals. Exercise of this power under Article 227 and interfering with the orders of the Courts or Tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, where if High Court does not interfere, a grave injustice would remain uncorrected [Also available at 2015 (2) CLJ (Cal) 424]
  6. Safeguards which are to be followed by Trial Court for the purpose of recording of evidence of the witness through video conference [Also available at 2015(3) CLJ (Cal) 462]
  7. Where truth is covered under a thin layer of mystery and falsehood, duty of the Court is to unveil the mystery and to explore the truth. By hook or by crook even by throwing dusts in the eyes of the Court some litigants want to snatch an order from the Court by misusing the procedural laws to gain something by practising fraud. This negative innovative ideas are the main cause for spiralling of cases and cultivation of litigation at every stage, which should be axed (Also available at [2016 (1) CLJ (Cal) 586])
  8. No court of law should jealously guard or uphold its own order if subsequently the conscience of the Court feels that a different order or even a diametrically opposite order is required to be passed for the ends of justice. The primary duty of a court of law is to do complete justice between the parties before it to the satisfaction of the Court’s conscience. So long as a court is in seisin of a matter, it can always pass an order which it had earlier declined to pass if the interest of justice so warrants. Procedure is not an end in itself but only a means far rendering justice to the parties before a court of law. Procedural technicalities must give way to substantive justice [Also available at 2016 (1) CLJ (CAL) 321]
  9. While considering and/or interpreting this type of provision under an Act, one has to keep in mind the intend, object and purpose for which the legislation was made. If it is found that an interpretation, if accepted, goes against the intent, object and purpose of the legislation, in that event, that interpretation is not at all acceptable. The interpretation which subserves the purpose and object of the Act is to be accepted [Also available at 2016 (1) CLJ (CAL) 352]
  10. The criminal court possesses enough power to catch and punish the real offenders (even if they have escaped the investigation net), if substantive evidence is given in proof of commission of offence by them. A hunch of the court whipped up by people demanding justice cannot be the basis to order a post s.173(2) report further investigation of the case [Also available at 2015 (1) CLJ (CAL) 01]

Source: Official Website of WBJA, Last Updated on 14-11-2017

© Official website of WBJA, India