Citation-3

1. A procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction to, or to defeat the very object, which is sought to be achieved.  A procedural law is always subservient to the substantive law.  Nothing may be given by a procedural law what is not sought to be given by a substantive law and nothing may be taken away by the procedural law what is given by the substantive law.  Saiyad Mohammad Bakar V. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab AIR 1998 SC 1624.

Procedural law may not betray the substantive law by submnitting to subordination of complexity. 

2. Technicality ought not to outweigh the course of justice, the same being the true effect of the doctrine of exdebito justiae.  Ruppa Ashok Hurra V. Ashok Hurra AIR 2002 SC 1771. 

3. Genesis of Criminal law in India.

(a)  Criminal Procedure Supreme Court Act 1852.

(b) High Court Criminal Procedure Act 1865.

(c)  Code of Criminal Procedure 1861. 

(d) Code of Criminal Procedure 1882. 

(e)  Code of Criminal Procedure 1889.

(f)   Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1923.

(f)   (1) Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act 1955.

(g) Code of Criminal Procedure 1973.

4. The primary object of Criminal procedure is to ensure a fair trial of accused persons. 

5. It is a general rule that penal enactments are construct strict and not extended beyond their technical meaning. 

6.    A failure of justice is not to be presumed by the mere fact that proceedings were conducted in a wrong place Mangaldas raghavi V. State of State Maharastra AIR 1966 SC 128.

7. There may be cases where a trial proceeds without any kind of charge of the outset, then it may be said to be a trial completely contrary to what is presumed by the CrPC, 1973.  In such cases the trial would be illegal, without the necessity of a positive finding of prejudice.  The Cr.P.C 1973 requires that there must be a charge and that it must be in writing.  A deliberate breach of this basic requirement may not be wered by the assertion that everything was orally explained to the accused, and there was not possible or probable prejudice.  Willie C Williams Slaney V. State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC 116 of 137.

8. Where the omission C in framing charge is conscious, the defect may not be wred.  AIR 2004 SC 2172, (2004)4 SCC 557.

9. A defect of jurisdiction may never be cured under Cr.P.C.  Cr.P.C applies to errors in procedure and not to substantive errors of law affecting the jurisdiction of the Court.  Gokul Chand Dwaraka Das V. King AIR 1948 PC 82.

10. The code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has abolished the original jurisdiction of the H.C and it retained only the extraordinary original criminal jurisdiction conferred by the letters patent.  A.R. Antulay V. R.S. Naik AIR 1988 SC 1531.1 (1988) CrLJ 1661. 

       The jurisdiction of the H.C. to try a case survives in the Cr.P.C to the limited extent provided therein.  The HC may transfer before itself any case and hold trial. 

11.   It is well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if after wise, justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant.  Sheo Nandan Paswan V. State of Bihar AIR 1987 SC 877. 

12. The allegations of mala fides against the informant are of no consequence and may not by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings.  State of Orissa V. Sajoj Kumar Sahoo (2005) 13 SCC 540.

13.  Objection to territorial Jurisdiction being technical in nature must be taken at the earliest.  If the accused does not raise any objection about the territorial jurisdiction of the Court or raises it when the whole of the proven evidence has been recorded and even same of the accused have been discharged, and if he does not say that he was in any way prejudiced, the trial even in a wrong Court would stand.  Nashiruddin Khan V. State of Bihar AIR 1973 SC 186. 

14.   There were two cases arising out of the same incident and one was before the chief Judicial Magistrate and the other was before the Sessions Judge.  To avoid conflicting judgments, the former was transferred to the Court of Sessions.  Chitaranjan Panigrahi V. State of Orissa (1987) 64 CLT 475. 

15.  A delay in lodging the F.I.R quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought as because of delay, the F.I.R not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity but a danger of the introduction of a coloured version also creeps in.  Apren Joseph V. State of Kerala AIR 1973 SCI, Thulia Kalia V. State of TN AIR 1973 SC 501. 

16.   Delay in lodging F.I.R, complaint is certainly a suspicious feature to be taken into consideration while judging the bonafides of the presentation.  Satrughan Singh V. State of Punjab Air 1995 SC 2449. Ramji Surjya V. State of Maharastra AIR 1983 SC 810. 

17. There is no mathematical formula by which an inference may be drawn either may merely on account of delay in lodging of the F.I.R.  Amar Singh V. Balivindar Singh AIR 2003 SC 1164. 

18.   The transfer of office of a trustee by the board and committee of a temple in return for present payment of a certain amount in cash and annual contribution of a certain sum, that is, for monetary contribution, is opposed to public policy.  ALSPL Subramannian Chattar V. S. Natesa Gurukul AIR 1938 Mad. 713.  But an alienation or release or renunciation of an office of a trustee not far value in famous of the next or immediate heir is valid.  Janaki Ammal V. Sanjeevi Chettiar AIR 1941 Mad. 552.

19. For a discussion on Orissa Hindu Religious Endowments Act 1939, See Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das V. State of Orissa Air 1954 SC 400.

20.   A dedication of property for a religious or charitable purpose on according to Hindu Law be validly made orally.  Tilkayat Shri Govindlal Ji V. State of Rajastan AIR 1963 SC 1638.  Dasaratha V. D.Subba Rao Air 1957 SC 797.  If the purpose is recognized as valid under Hindu Law and no writing is necessary to create an endowment except where it is created by a will  Vidyavarathi V. Balasami Ayyar AIR 1922 PC 123. 

21. A valid endowment can be created in favour of an idol or temple without the performance of any particular ceremony provided the settler had expressed intention to dedicate properly but the performance of ceremonies would be valuable evidence in its favour.  Dasaratha Rami Reddi V. D.Subba Rao AIR 1957 SC 797, Deoki Nandan V. Muralidhar AIR 1957 SC 133.

22. A valid endowment does not require acceptance by the done unlike a gift under T.P. Act.  However, what is required is a complete renunciation of the ownership by the donor irrespective of the fact that the idol may not have come into existence on the date of making the delication.  Bhupati Nath V. Ram Lal (1909) ILR 37 Cal 128 (FB). 

23.   A Hindu who is of sound mind and not a minor may dispose of property as gift, for religious and charitable purpose.  The purpose to be clearly specified and the property should be set apart or dedicated for intended purpose. 

24. A General endowment without the name of the deity would be void for uncertainty.  Chandini Chandan Mitra V. Hari Bala Dass AIR 1919 Cal 199.

25. Where endowment is created by will without clearly specifying the deity, the Court must ascertain the wishes of the settler by talking the will as a whole.  Veluswami Goundan V. Dandapani (1946), Mad LJ 354.

26.  One of the essentials of or a valid endowment is the property must be specified.  State of Madras V. S.S.M. Paripalana Sangam AIR 1954 Mad. 482.

27. We think as a general rule the trial Court should after recording the conviction adjourn the matter to a further date and call upon both the persons as well as the defence to place the relevant materials bearing on the question of sentence before it and thereafter pronounce the sentence to be imposed on the offender.  Allauddin Mian V. State of Bihar [(1989) 3 SCC 5/1989 SCC (Cri) 490] Check before use.

28.   Territorial application of probate proceeding (SS7, 213 I Succession Act, 1925) Clearance Pais V. Union of India AIR 2001 SC 1151.

29.   When right under will established? What is the effect of probate? Read. Cherichi V. Ittianam AIR 2001 Kar. 184 (DB).