Accused Summoning Call Records of Investigating officer

2018 SCC OnLine P&H 4272 |

J 1

12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suresh Kumar v. Union of India; 2015 (3) RCR (Criminal) 340 has observed that the accused can be allowed to summon call record of the mobile telephones of concerned police officers to show that the police were not near the location of recovery but were at some other location. It has been observed in para 8 as under:—

“8. All that we are concerned with is whether call details which the appellant is demanding can be denied to him on the ground that such details are likely to prejudice the case of the prosecution by exposing their activities in relation to similar other cases and individuals. It is not however in dispute that the call details are being summoned only for purposes of determining the exact location of the officers concerned at the time of the alleged arrest of the appellant from Yashica Palace hotel near the bus stand. Ms. Makhijamadea candid concession that any other information contained in the call details will be of no use to the appellant and that the appellant would not insist upon disclosure of such information. That in our opinion simplifies the matter in as much as while the call details demanded by the appellant can be summoned in terms of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act such details being relevant only to the extent of determining the location of officers concerned need not contain other information concerning such calls received or made from the telephone numbers concerned. In other words if the mobile telephone numbers caller details of the callers are blacked out of the information summoned from the companies concerned it will protect the respondent against any possible prejudice in terms of exposure of sources of information available to the Bureau. Interest of justice would in our opinion be sufficiently served if we direct the Trial Court to summon from the Companies concerned call details of Sim telephone No. 9039520407 and 7415593902 of Tata Docomo company and in regard to Sim No. 9165077714 of Airtel company for the period 24.02.2013 between 4.30 to 8.30 p.m. We further direct that calling numbers and the numbers called from the said mobile phone shall be blacked out by the companies while furnishing such details.”

 

Tribunal or court below not needed to be impleaded in appeal or writs

2015 9 SCC 1

Matrimonial Cases - Jurisdiction - Continuing wrong

Rupali Devi v. State of U.P., (2019) 5 SCC 384 : (2019) 2 SCC (Cri) 558 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 493 at page 390

 

16. We, therefore, hold that the courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty committed by the husband or his relatives, would, dependent on the factual situation, also have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 498-A of the Penal Code.

Deemed Extension of Time Bound Stay order if not vacated

Regain of Seniority / Catch up Rule

UoI v. Sukh Nandan Pande

 

no mandamus for legislation or subordinate legislation

1.            State of J&K v. A.R. Zakki, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 548 : 1992 SCC (L&S) 427 :  (1992) 20 ATC 285 at page 554

10. In our opinion there is considerable merit in this submission. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation. Same is true as regards the executive when it exercises the power to make rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation. Section 110 of the J and K Constitution, which is on the same lines as Article 234 of the Constitution of India, vests in the Governor, the power to make rules for appointments of persons other than the District Judges to the Judicial Service of the State of J and K and for framing of such rules, the Governor is required to consult the Commission and the High Court. This power to frame rules is legislative in nature. A writ of mandamus cannot, therefore, be issued directing the State Government to make the rules in accordance with the proposal made by the High Court.

2.            The same has also been previously taken by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association v. Union of India [(1989) 4 SCC 187 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 569] wherein it has been laid down: (SCC p. 219, para 51)

"There can be no doubt that no court can direct a legislature to enact a particular law. Similarly, when an executive authority exercises a legislative power by way of subordinate legislation pursuant to the delegated authority of a legislature, such executive authority cannot be asked to enact a law which he has been empowered to do under the delegated legislative authority."

 

3.            Thus, it is stated that framing of a rule is a matter of policy, especially the rules relating to recruitment to public posts.

Improper Selection

In Dy. Executive Engineers' Assn. v. State of Gujarat, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 591 at page 601, it has been by this Hon'ble Court that:

 

“11. The entire appointment of direct recruits, therefore, from the waiting list was not proper. But these persons have been appointed and are working now at least for five years. It would, therefore, be unjust and harsh to quash their selection at this stage.”

 

Similar view has been taken by this Hon'ble Court in Nayagarh Cooperative Central Bank Limited and Another v. Narayan Rath & Another, (1977) 3 SCC 576:

“4. The writ petition filed by Respondent 1 could succeed, in our opinion, on the narrow ground that he had been permitted to function for over thirteen years as secretary of the Bank and that his appointment as Secretary was decided upon in a meeting over which the Registrar of Cooperative Societies had himself presided. The writ petition in substance is directed not against any order passed by the Cooperative Bank but against the order passed by the Registrar disapproving the appointment of Respondent 1 as secretary of the Bank. It was not open to the Registrar, in our opinion, to set aside Respondent 1's appointment as a secretary after having acquiesced in it and after having for all practical purposes, accepted the appointment as valid. It is undesirable that appointments should be invalidated in this manner after a lapse of several years.”