Mayawati Seeks CBI Probe In Arjun Singh Case

Here is the link

______________________________________

Union Minister Arjun Singh In Dowry Case

• Renuka Chaudhry Acknowledges Abuse of 498A-Defends Arjun Singh
  
• Here is the link
• http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/31/news/india.php
• http://munneerram.blogspot.com/2007/09/cbi-refuses-to-probe-dowry-case-linked.html
• http://www.twocircles.net/2007jul31/dont_blame_arjun_dowry_case_renuka_chowdhury.html

__________________________________________________

Madras HC: No Time Frame For AB

-UNI 18 July 2007

 

The Madras High Court has held that an order of anticipatory bail should not be limited to a particular period of time.
The full bench, comprising Mr Justices R Balasubramanyam, S K Krishnan and R Raghupathy, passed the order on a matter referred to it by the Chief Justice, through an administrative order on June 26, 2007.
The full bench was appointed to hear a case in which two persons, Sudhakaran and Palani Kumar, approached the Madurai bench of Madras High Court to get anticipatory bail. A single judge had granted anticipatory bail, but only for a limited
The Madurai Bar had argued before the single judge that if the court decided to grant anticipatory bail, it should do so without limiting the
The single judge had pointed out the conflict in the Supreme Court judgement on whether the court had the power to grant anticipatory bail for a limited period or not. He had asked the Registry to present the papers before the Chief Justice. The matter was first referred to a Division Bench and later to the full Bench.
The full bench observed that the Supreme Court held conflicting views on the matter and pointed out the Apex Court observation that as per the law of precedence, if a High Court faced conflicting views, it should follow the opinion expressed by the larger Bench.
It also referred to the Constitutional Bench judgement in the case of one Gurupaksh Singh, in which it was held that the operation of the order should not be limited to a particular period of time.

_______________________________________

SC: Period Of “limitation” To Apply From Date Of Filing A Complaint

Here is the article from Indian Express. I believe this is useful in quashing cases. I am not sure what this means completely with regard to 498A.

An Excerpt:

“A bench of Justices C K Thakker and Tarun Chatterjee said it was overruling all previous decisions of the courts in the country including certain rulings of the apex court that the “limitation” period would commence from the date when a magistrate takes cognisance of a complaint. The apex court said that quashing complaints on account of the delay caused by courts would be violation of Article 14 (Equality before Law) as the complainant cannot be faulted for the delay. “The provision of law (468 CrPC) may have to be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. It can possibly be urged that such a provision is totally arbitrary irrational and unreasonable,” the bench observed under section 468 of the CrPC, courts in the country are barred from taking cognisance of a complaint after the period of “limitation”.”

Here is another explanation:

“The Supreme Court has held that a litigant cannot be penalised or punished for the omission, default or inaction on the part of a court or a magistrate.

A bench comprising Justices CK Thakkar and Tarun Chatterjee, while allowing the appeal of a Japani Sahoo against the Orissa High Court judgement, dated June 20,2006, dropping criminal proceedings against a policeman, Chandrashekhar Mohanti, for demanding Rs 5000 per month as illegal gratification from Sahoo, observed, “A complainant is not responsible for any delay on the part of the court or magistrate in issuing process or taking cognisance of an offence if that action of initiation of proceedings has been taken within the period of limitation. Now, if he is sought to be penalised because of the omission, default or inaction on the part of the court or magistrate, the provision of law may have to be treated on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.” The Court also noticed, “It can possibly be urged that such a provision is totally arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable. It is settled law that a court of law would interpret a provision, which would help sustain the validity of law by applying the doctrine of reasonable construction. Connecting the provision of limitation in Section 468 CrPC with issuing of process or taking of cognisance by the court may make it unsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.” “In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal procedings and not the date of taking cognisance by a magistrate or issuals of process by a court. We, therefore, overrule all decisions, in which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is taking of cognisance by the magistrate/court and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal procedings,” the court added.

The court also directed the trial court to proceed with the case as expeditiously as possible.”

Here is the judgment (pdf): SC Judgement On Period Of Limitation For Quash

______________________________________________________