Day To Day Proceedings………..2-19

TABLE OF CONTENTS Day to Day proceedings………..2-19

1 | Page

Day 1: Date: 13th December 2016 (Tuesday) This was the first day of the internship. On the first day,all I had to do was to know around the office and know what kind of cases were mostly handled by the advocates of the office where I interned. The office entertained those case which are criminal in nature. Day 2: Date: 14th December 2016 (Wednesday) Case Study: Government of Rajasthan V. Satyanarayan Facts: a person was working under Jain namkeen shop situated in ajmer for nine years but for few months he didn’t came for work due to some family problems. The police came to kow that this person was selling adulterated ghee in the name of pure ghee and was earning profits so the police went to inspect the house of accused where they found ingredients and other things which were used for adulteration. So the police collected the sample and send it to public health laboratory for report where it was observed that ‘sample is adulterated as it does not conform to the standards prescribed in the PFA Rule 1955. It was also misbranded as per section 2(IX)(K) of the PFA Act, 1954. Facts in issue: Whether the accused was guilty under section 420 and 487 of IPC Principle involved: section 420 states whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment od either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 487 states that whoever makes any false mark upon any case, package or other receptacle containing goods, in a manner reasonably calculated to cause any public servant or any other person to believe that such receptacle contains goods which it does not contain or that the goods contained in such receptacle are of a nature or quality thereof, shall, unless he proves that he acted without intent to defraud, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. 2 | Page

Held: The judgment was delivered by Justice Ratan Lal where the accused was found guilty under section 420 because he was selling adulterated ghee in the name of makhan bhog to public and was gaining improper profit. So the public were made to believe that they were buying pure ghee and were also liable under section 487. Day 3: Date: 15th December 2016 (Thursday) Case Study: Mamta Nakwal V. Parmanand Facts: The ‘P’ got married on 16.02.2006 according to Hindu rituals. The ‘P’ parents and relatives gave dowry accordint to their capacity. But ‘D’ and his family were greedy of dowry. In 2006 on the occasion of Rakhi they asked for gold set and Hero Honda bike, though during marriage ‘P’ father gave defendant bike but that bike was gifted by ‘D’ to his brother. In 2006 on the occasion of diwali they again asked for gold ring and a cash of Rs 21,000 which was given bt ‘P’ family. In June 2008 ‘D’ and his family again claimed for one lakh cash and a maruti car and threatens her if she would not fulfill there demand then they would kill her. In 2009 due to dowry demand they started beating ‘P’. so the case was filed under section 498A and 406 and on 15.01.2013 an FIR was launched for the same. But on 21.01.2013 some older members of their cast made compromise between them. But again after two to three months later ‘D’ and there family members started demanding dowry and started beating ‘P’ for the same. They thrown ‘P’ out of the house and told her to came only when she was ready to gave dowry. Facts in issue: Whether the accised was liable under section 498A and 406 Arguments by Plaintiff: The ‘D’ and their family had given false assurance that they would no more ask for dowry and the ‘D’ would live a happy marriage life with the ‘P’ as a result of which as a result of which ‘P’ had taken her first case back. Argument by Defendant: These all are false allegations. The ‘P’ never lived with husband and with his family so there was no quesrion of physical or mental torture, neither they asked for dowry. Held: The case is still pending in the court, but I think that ‘D’ would be liable because there were various witness which made it clear that ‘D’ and his family were regularly demanding for dowry and torturing ‘P’ for the same. 3 | Page

Day 4: Date: 16th December 2016 (Friday) Visit to Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal I visited to this court were I saw the arguments of both the parties relating to salary matter of employees. In this the matter was that the defendant i.e. employer side were claiming that they have paid the employees but thr plaintiff were claiming that the employees were not paid extra for the work they had done during holidays. Neither there were any proof which was available with ‘D’ that they had paid employyes. So the court had gave another date so that the defendant side can show some evidences which can prove that they actually paid workers for the work done by them during holidays. Then I went to other court room of Upper CJM Rent Tribunal where I saw how a testimony is taken by advocates. How advocates of both the parties ask question from the client and other witnesses which actually plays a decesive role in determining case. Day 5: Date: 17th December 2016 (Saturday) Visit to SC/ST Court I went to SC/ST Court where I saw the hearing of the triple murder case and saw how the statement of police officer had taken who had done investigation in the matter. The defendant advocate asked various questions to the ploice officer regarding the crime scene. In this case three person killed a person by beating him through stone. Various questions were asked to officers such as who all were present at the crime scene, whether the stone through which person was killed was round or flat, where were blood spot on shirt of person who was killed, what were the other objects which were there. In the whole case there was only one witness so the advocate asked whether the police tried to find out any other witness. Through this I came to know that taking statement of police is a crucial part of a case proceedings. This at the same time also makes police responsible towards their work because they have some sort of fear that whatever and whoever they investigate they have to answerable to court. So this prevent the police to act arbitrarily and act within the ambit of law. Day 6: Date: 18th December 2016 (Sunday)

4 | Page

Day 7: Date: 19th December 2016 (Monday) Case Study: Moti Ram V. State of Rajasthan Facts: An FIR was registered against appellant at police station Bhirani on 18.04.1994 in which it was alleged that in night between 11-12 PM when the complainant was sleeping in her house at that time, the accussed implied over the wall of the house and tried to outrage modesty of the complainant. Upon her shouts her husband woke up and came to her rescue and the accused appellant ran away from the place of occurance. The statement of the accused appellant under section 313 Crpc was recorded and finally trial court acquitted the accused from charge under section 376/511 IPC but convicted the appellant for commission of offence under section 354 IPC and passed sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 1 year. Argument by Learned Counsel for Appellant: They vehemently argued that due to enmity the appellant has been implicated falsely in this case which is evident from the fact that as per statement of Murti her husband, refused to file FIR for the said incident therefore on this fact alone it can be said that whole story is false.. no ther corroborative evidence is on record to prove the fact of the alleged occurrence. However the trial court ignoring material aspect of the case convicted the appellant for offence under section 354 IPC. Therefore it was prayed that impugned judgment and conviction may be quashed and set aside. In alternative, learned counsel for appellant submit that if court comes to conclusion that finding arrived by trial court does not require interference then sentence awarded to petitioner may be reduced to period of imprisonment already undergone by appellant (40 days). Argument by Learned Public Prosecutor: They opposed the prayer of counsel for appellant and submit that for such type of offence, the testimony of the prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved. Held: The court held that no woman would make such false allegation in which her own modesty is involved therefore testimony of Murit cannot be discredited solely on ground that her husband is not arroborating the incident. However the court referring to Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari v. state of Maharashtra, it was held that the offence is related to April 1994 and this appeal filed in year 1996 and final hearing in month of October 2016, after near about more than 5 | Page

18 years and as per record the appellant remained in police and judicial custody for almost 40 days so it is appropriate to reduce the sentence of the appellant from 1 year to the period already undergone by him. Hence the appeal is partly allowed. Day 8: Date: 20th December 2016 (Tuesday) Visit to Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate statement of Accused was taken by advocate. During this advocate asks various questions from accused i.e. whether he has signed any document or not. What was there in FIR. Through this I got to know the importance of FIR in proceedings, it is a information which is recorded under section 154 Cr,P.C. and is a public document and a certified copy of it is admissible in evidence. The FIR has great value because it shown on what material the investigation commenced and what was the story then told. The FIR is very valuable document and the accused entitled to know what was said before the officer in charge of the police station so that he may be in a position to protect his interests by cross-examination the prosecution witnesses with respect to any addition or alteration in the story of prosecution which may subsequently be made in evidence. Day 9: Date: 21th December 2016 (Wednesday) Case Study: Ranjit Singh V. Parmeshwari Facts: ‘P’ and ‘D’ married by Hindu rituals in 2005. Earlier case was filed by Parmeshwari for divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She contended that her husband and his family member behave badly with her, they had no child as a result Ranjit and his family members used to taunt her regularly. They beat her when this came under the knowledge of Parmeshwai family they send her brother to know what happened but when he reached to his sister, Ranjit and his family members abused him and send Rameshwari with her brother and threatened that they would keep her only when they would got five lakh and a Bolero car and jewelry from her family side. So Parmeshwari filed a case of divorce. Argument by Appellant: After marriage ‘D’ behaved cruelly with him and his family members she also engages in unnecessary fight with his family and without informing any one he visits her father house and use to stay for long time. They also tried to talk to here regarding this but she 6 | Page

never listened to them. She left her husband house and took also her cloths and jewelry also. So they wanted her to came back to there house by enforcing section 9 of HMA. The case is still pending and is not decided by the court. I think section 9 must be enforce by the court because the husband is ready to live with her life and perform all martial obligations so one change must be given to husband and there is as such no evidence that can prove that the husband had done any cruelty as such. Day 10: Date: 22th December 2016 (Thursday) Miscellaneous matters, generally related for directions and office reports, adjourned matters and fresh matters mostly related to delay in filling SLP or Ex party stay or order or seek permission to file additional matters. Some of the proceedings in Hon’ble court are as follows: 1. In a case related to maintenance, women remarried, husband approach under Art. 136 to set aside the maintenance, the court directed the petitioner that to approach a proper forum, when statutory remedy is provided petitioner should avail the same, as section 127(3) Cr.pc. provided the statutory remedy in case the womwn remarried to modify or set aside the maintenance, the husband should approach the magistrate holding the jurisdiction and not by the way of SLP. 2. In a case of cheating, fraud embezzlement, where lakhs of rupees are alleged, investigation is not over, bail cannot be granted. Bail denied. 3. Most of the matter related to transfer, condonation of delay or stay of application or whether issue notice was received or not? 4. In a case, related to bail, first bail was grantedon medical grounds as accused gone angioplasty, then another bail is granted during recovery period, then he surrendered himself, and collector granted parole against petitioner/accused come before the hon’ble court on medical grounds, here court declined to interfere and order him to surrender before police and go to jail custody, if in case he need any medical facilities such can be provided in jail. Day 11: Date: 23th December 2016 (Friday) Case Study: State of Rajasthan V. Babloo Ranjit

7 | Page

Facts: Police got information through their sources that some people who are staying near Dhola maru hotel, janana road, ajmer were selling exam paper of Jail Prahari Exam to be conducted on 24.01.2016 between 10AM-12PM. They were solving the question paper and transferring the same through mobile whatsapp to their relatives and friends. Where police arrived at the scene they found accused were indulged in forwarding the paper and was also making the answer key for the same. When they were interrogated it was found out that they were selling the question paper in one lakh rupees and on final selection they would further got one lakh rupees more. Argument by Defendant: ‘D’ was a student who was selling the question paper. ‘D’ got information that this might be the exam paper. They had not stolen the paper. If ‘D’ would go to jail his future would be affected. The paper which got stolen had not been recovered from any of the accused. The matter is still pending in the court. I think it would be to early to say decide whether the accused is guilty or not, more evidence need to be produced before the court. Day 12: Date: 24th December 2016 (Saturday) Day 13: Date: 25th December 2016 (Sunday) Case Study: State of Rajasthan V. Prahlad Gurjur Facts: ‘P’ went for mutation work to prahlad who was a patwari1, who asked for 10,000 rs for the same so ‘P’ gave him 9,000 rs and ‘D’ asked him to came tomorrow for mutation copy. After 6-7 days later when ‘P’ called ‘D’ and asked for copy ‘D’ asked further 20,000 rs for the same. On denial of ‘P’ he asked for 15,000 rs. So ‘P’ told that he already gave 9,000 rs and now he would gave him 11,000 rs more, but ‘D’ told forget about that 9,000 rs. So ‘P’ went to Anti Corruption Bureau for complaint. Where there was some Purn Singh officer who asked ‘P’ to call patwari and record the same. So when ‘P’ call patwari he asked for 15,000 rs. Then ACB people put some colour on 1,000 rs notes and asked ‘P’ to gave the same notes to patwari. He was backed by police when ‘P’ went to gave money to patwari took money and went ‘P’ infored the police the patwari was caught red handed.

1 A government official who keeps records regarding the ownership of land. 8 | Page

Issue: Whether the accused liable under section 7, 13(1)D od Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Held: the accused was held guilty Day 14: Date: 26th December 2016 (Monday) Case Study: Saroj v. State of Rajasthan Facts: P filed a case stating that she married to jagdish and they have two children. She alleges that D used to beat her, he does not do any work and had a bad habit of drinking. On 8.10.2009 he beated her and throwed her out of house, she went to her sister’s house and told about the incident and asked for work so that she can feed her childrens and finally she got a work in factory. The owner of the factory Babual told her that she has to do whatever is asked by him. One day babulal took her into his cabin taken off his cloths and clicked her nude pictures and threatened her that she must sleep with him otherwise he would viral the picture, as a result of which she continued to work there and he used to have physical relation with him. Later this incident came to the knowledge of her husband who took her to his village and told her from now on you would earn money by doing this work only. And he called his friends and they raped her. When she raised her voice against this he threatened her to kill. Issue: Whether D liable under section 376, 384, 343 of IPC Held: The matter is still pending in the court. But I think D is liable because there are various evidences against him. Day 15: Date: 27th December 2016 (Tuesday) Case Study: Cases concerned with the interpretation of section 173-A of the Rajasthan Municipalities act, 1959 as amended by the Municipalities Amendment Act 1999, which deals with the power of state government to allow change in use of land on payment of conversation charges. Held: Muncipal corporation is not empowered to amend any amount for change of use of land.

Day 16: Date: 28th December 2016 (Wednesday) 9 | Page

Case Study: Vishwanath Agarwal v. Sarla Agarwal Facts: Husband files a petition under section 13(1)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for divorce, while respondant wife with whim and irrationality reigned in her day to day behavior and frequent quarrel became a daily affair on certain occasion she used to hide the keys of the motorcycle and close the gate so that the appellant could not go to the office of the factory to look after the business. Issue: 1. Whether the appellant has been able to prove the alleged cruelty. 2. Whether he was entitled to take disadvantage of his own wrong. Held: The cruel behavior of the wife has frozen the emotions and snuffed out the bright candle of feeling of the husband because he has been treated as an unperson. Thus, analysed, it is abundantly clear that with this mental pain, agony and suffering, the husband cannot be asked to put up with the conduct of the wife and to continue to live with her. Therefore, he is entitled to a decree of divorce. Day 17: Date: 29th December 2016(Thursday) Research Question: To analyze and understand the scope and ambit of section 50 NDPS Act,1985 particularly in regard to the admissibility of the evidence collected by an investigating officer during a search and seizure conducted in violation of the provision of section 50 of the NDPS Act? Researcher comes across decision like Vijay Singh v. State of Gujarat2, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, Madanlal v. State of HP3, State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh4 where divergent opinion were shown by SC as punishment under NDPS act is quite high and of serious nature, required relevant consideration whether section 50 casts a duty on the empowered officer to inform the 2 (2011) 1 SCC 609 3 AIR 2003 SC 3642 4 (1994) 3 SCC 299 10 | P a g e

suspect of his right to be searched in the presence of the Gazetted officer or a Magistrate, if he is so desires or whether a mere enquiry by the said officer as to whether the suspect would like to be searched in the presence of the Magistrate or Gazetted officer can be said to be due compliance with the mandate of the said section? And whether section 50 is applicable for the search of bag, vehicle and premises etc also? As per concluded by the courts from time to time even after amendment under section 50 that right under section 50(1) of the NDPS Act, by way of a safeguard, has been conferred on the suspect viz to check the misuse of power, to avoid harm to innocent persons and to minimize the allegations of planting or foisting of false cases by the law enforcement agencies it would be imperative on the part of the empowered officer to apprise the person intended to be search of his right to be searched before a gazette officer or a magistrate. Day 18: Date: 30th December 2016(Friday) Case Law: State of Rajasthan v. Jayauddin Facts: P rajesh jain r/o godhagi ki nayasi filed an report that he lives in Ramdawara building and he has one car tata indigo which is in the name of his sister Madhu Jain and he used to park it near Prabhat cinema . he parked his car and next morning when he went there he found his car was not there somebody stolen his car. During investigation police found that the stolen car was with jayauddin. Defedant Argument: False allegations against him. His name was not there in FIR. There was no criminal record on him. Held: D was liable under section 379 of IPC which is a punishment for theft. Day 19: Date: 31th December 2016 (Saturday) Case Study: State of Rajasthan V. Prem Chand Berwa Facts: ‘P’ Shankar lal filed an FIR stating his younger brother Ramlal on 03.12.08 near 4:00 PM when he was going his home from Gulabbadi to Kaliyanipura he was been hit by motorcycle Hero Honda near poltary farm. The driver was driving very fast and rashlessely and hit his brother as a result of which he has suffered serious injuries near head and ear. This whole 11 | P a g e

incident has been witnessed by his aunty’s son Puran. So they filed a complaint against ‘D’ under section 279 and 337. Issues: 1) Whether ‘D’ through his motorcycle hit P’s brother Ramlal as a result of which he had suffered injuries. 2) If yes than ‘D’ would be liable under what sections. Argument By Defendant: ‘D’ has been falsely indulged in this case. In FIR the ‘P’ had gave wrong bike number. There was no accident which took place from his bike. He is innocent. Held: The court held that the ‘D’ is liable under section 279 and 337 and he was liable to pay 1,33,000 rs within 30 days through draft in the name of plaintiff and has to submit the same in court. Day 20: Date: 1nd January 2017 (Sunday) Day 21: Date: 2rd January 2017 (Monday) Case Study: State of Rajasthan V. Nambi Abbasi Facts: Mohammed Khurshid Topachi belong to topchi family stated that we are performing the task of gunnes from the ancestral time. At every function of Garib nawaz dargaah the gunning is necessary and matter is that where the firing stand of the gun is mounted a person named abdul rehman abassi occupied the place by illegally constructed the wall by making the process of gunning risky because it need open space to perform the function of gun fire and no residence or wall were there. Counsel also referred SC case of Sanghi brothers ovt ltd v. Sanjay Choudhary & others were it was held that strong suspicion about the commission of offence and the involvement of the accused is sufficient for framing of charge. No necessity of formulating the opinion about conviction. Court has to see only whether the material brought on record could reasonably connect the counsel also referred another case of Anand v. state of Rajasthan where it was atated that enmity between the accused and deceased, cogent and credible ocular evidence of related eye witnesses. Ample evidence on record that accused appellant was carrying a knife with him when he entered that place of incident, ‘A’ inflicted repeated blows on the body of deceased.

12 | P a g e

Intention to cause death, accused also inflicted knife blows on cheat of deceased. Evidence of eye witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the basus of relationship. Day 22: Date: 3th January 2017 (Tuesday) Case Study: Radhika Sharma v. Ishant Sharma Facts: ‘P’ got married on 28.11.2012 according to hindu rituals in Ajmer. ‘P’ and ‘D’ through their marriage also has one son who in present was living with ‘P’. during marrage P’s parent according to their capacity had given jewellery, clothes as a dowry. After marriage when P went to her house within few hours D and his family members took all the jewelley and gold stating that there is a constant fear of theft. After marriage D did not even allowed P to talk to her family and told from now on you have no relation with your family you have to live like an inmate in my family. D’s family started torturing her physically as well as mentally and started saying that they want 50,000 rs and one car and told her to ask the same from her brother otherwise they would keep torturing her like that. After marriage P got to know that D had a bad habit of drinking and when P was pregnant D compelled her to take abortion and when P told no D started beating her and throw her out of house. When P had a child the same was infored to D but he told he has no relation with child and he even doesn’t cme to meet him to hospital. So P filed a case for divorce. Issue: Whether P is entited for divorce under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Held: The matter is still pending in the court. I think D will be succeed in his claim because there was cruelty which was done to her by her husband and there are some medical reports also which showed that P had suffered internal injuries due to beating. Day 23: Date: 4th January 2017 (Wednesday) Case Study: Radhika Sharma v. Vishal Beniwal Facts: P Hari Prasad was a resident of Sikar, Rajasthan and on 19.05.2015 aroung 3 AM he got a call from his son Aasish who was doing his engineering from engineering college Ajmer. He was living in a rent house, some 5-6 boys of his own college came to his house, and csme near his room and started shouting, when he opened the door he found 5-6 persons were standing in front 13 | P a g e

of him covering there face and having bat and hockey in their hand and these persons entered in his room and stated beating him as a result of which aashish suffered injuries in his right shoulder and right leg knee and when aashish shouted the landlord ran to saw but till that time all the person’s went away. After that when aashsih was asked who all were there than he told that all of them were not calling them by name but were calling themselves as boss but by hearing there voice, he came to know that they were arun, rahul, rampal, chagan, these people have some enmity with aashish and two days before they threatened him that they would beat him. Issue: whether all the persons were liable under section 325 and 459 of IPC Held: Guilty Day 24: Date: 5th January 2017(Thursday) Case Study: State of Rajasthan v. Jagdish Facts: Sh. Bhati Abdul Ajay s/o Mohd Bakash r/o saganer PS subash nagar dist Bhilwara was caught carrying 60 kgs of popy milk in a jeep on 17.12.94 by shops chopta district sirsa. A case has been registered in this regard. Accused abdul revealed that one Sharma employed him to drive the jeep from bhilwara to village darba in district sirsa, Sharma whise identity has not been established so far got down at nauhar on the way and directed the accused to go to village darba. The registration book which was recovered from the jeep has been issued in the name of one ram Sharma by registration authority ajmer, further enquiry revealed that no such person is living at the address given in the registration book, has been issued to a non existing person during the visit of hon’ble inspecting judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court of sirsa jail on 10.04.95 accussed abdul ajij who pleaded his innocence in the case and requested judge to release him on bail. Issue: Whether accused liable under section 420 of IPC Principle: According to section 420 of IPC, whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. 14 | P a g e

Held: The accused was held liable. Day 25: Date: 6th January 2017 (Friday) Research Question: To analyze and understand the scope and requirement of ingredients that should be provento bring record under conviction under section 7 and section 13(2) under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? The researcher examined the decision of various Hon’ble courts where aforementioned sections were under scrutiny. In short certain decision which are felt relevant under consideration are DR Anup Kumar & Anr v. CBI5, C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State6, Soma Chakravarthy v. State7, Tarlochandev v. State of Punjab8, Kanwarjit Singh Kakkar v. State of Punjab9 where it is concluded that The essential ingredients of section 7 are that 1) The person who accepts gratification should be a public servant 2) He should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant and 3) He should have obtained a valuable things or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. Without any public interest. A) In section 13(1)(d), the word used is ‘obtained’. The Apex Court in the case of C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Govt of India [(1997) 9 SCC 477] had the occasion to consider the word ‘obtained’ used in section 5 of PC Act, 1947, which is now section 13(1)(d)of the act. It was held in para 12thus: “The position will, however, be different so far as an 5 2012 (11) TMI 953 (DELHI HIGH COURT) 6 (2012) 39 SCD 721 7 2007 (5) SCC 403 8 (2001) 6 SCC 260 9 (2011) 6 SCR 895 15 | P a g e

offence under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the act is concerned. For such an offence prosecution has to prove that the accused obtained the valuable things or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means”. B) The dishonest intention is the gist of the offence u/s 13(1)(d) is implicit in the words used i.e. corrupt or illegal means and abuse of position as a public servant. that’s an honest though erroneous exercise of power is not an abuse of power. A decision, action or instruction may be inconvenient to the person affected but it would not be an absuse of power. It must be such an abuse of power which would render a councilor unworthy of holding the office of President. C) The demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for the constitution of an offence under the PC Act, 1988. In arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence- demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not. D) The court took the view that mere recovery of tainted money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable. Day 26: Date: 7th January 2017 (Saturday) Case Study: State of Rajasthan v. Vicky Facts: The incident took place on 21.04.2015. P Tejprakash was coming from his duty to his railway quarter for lunch around 11:30 AM and when he again came out for duty after having lunch he found that his bike was not there he searched in nearby areas but didn’t found, so he filed an FIR for the same. After few days police called him at PS where there were some 25-30 bikes out of which tejprakash got his bike so when the matter went to the court and when police statement was taken it was found out that Vicky and rohit had done the theft and this was not their first theft previously also they did the same things. Once they do the theft they went to kekri which is a town 80 kms away from ajmer and gave the bike to a person named Hanuman Dhakad who used to sell the bikes, when police went there they found six bikes with hanuman and the police seized all the bikes by section 102 0f crpc. Held: Vicky and Rohit were liable under section 379 of IPC which is punishment for theft and hanuman was held liable under setion 411 which is dishonestly receiving stolen property 16 | P a g e

Day 27: Date: 8th January 2017 (Sunday) Day 28: Date: 9th January 2017 (Monday) Lordship Premlata Saini held in court room 6, proceedings commences as follows: Regular matters are listed, some of them which are critical to understand the proceeding in Hon’ble court are as follows: 1. In a criminal matter, where offence under section 302, read with section 148, 149 IPC were found. The petitioner’s main contention was that his injuries were unexplained by the prosecution, there were no personal amity between accused and the deceased, in this incident one person died and two were seriously injured, total 11 accused on a tractor trespass the land cultivating by the victims and the deceased and carrying lethal weapons hits so hard that one person died on the spot. The incident was unexplained by the prosecution but their presence was proved. The Hon’ble court after hearing rejected the contention alleged by the appellant and found guilty under section 302 reads with section 149 IPC and rejected the contention to convert the punishment to section 304(2) IPC 2. In a matter, abetment of suicide case, state allege story is that boy come to girl house and the threat or intimidated the girl’s father that he will come by the evening, make ready your answer when you are about to marry her daughter with him, the question arose simply whether such threat comes under abetment to suicide? The Hon’ble court gives its answer in negative, that is not a case of abetment in any sense and dismiss the appeal. Day 29: Date: 10th January 2017 (Tuesday) Research Question: Whether if the punishment or penalty is altered by law through amendment and maximum punishment or penalty is unaltered, is it an ex post facto, a law which is violative of art. 20(1)? In doing the research, the researcher come to three case laws, two from US Court and another one is from Indian courts, which laid down the principles and its application involved in ex post facto law, one is Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 380 which laid down four principles regarding ex post facto law as said “I will state what laws I consider ex post facto laws, within the words and their intent of the prohibition”: 17 | P a g e

1. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal and punishes such action. 2. Every law that aggravates the crime or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3. Every law that changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment, that the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4. Every law that alters the legal rule of evidence, and receives the less, or different, testimony, that the law required at the time of the commission of the offence, in order to convict the offender. And the other is Dobert v. Florida (1977) 432 U.S. 282 which says that even if the punishment or penalty is modified where its maximum limits is unaltered, than it is just a procedural change and it does not affect the vested rights of accused and it is not violative of article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution. Similarly in Satwant Singh v The State of Punjab (1960) 2 SCR 89 and UOI v. Super Processors (1993) IILLJ 203 Bom HC that maximum penalty remains unaltered as this is prescribed by section 14-B which remains the same. Therefore when the exercise of discretion is governed by more rational and generally better guidelines, such guidelines must be applied from the date when they come into existence. Day 30: Date: 11th January 2017 (Wednesday) Case Law: Shewta Jain v. Vikas Jain Facts: P got married on 24.11.2008 according to hindu rituals in Ajmer. At the time of marriage both of them were from hindu religion and nobody had changed his/her religion before marriage. They have two children through their marriage who are presently living with P. after marriage D and his family members started torturing her for dowry and stated that D’s father is a patwari they didn’t get dowry according to their demand. The P was compelled that she must bring ten lakhs and one car and they started physically assaulting her. D used to work outside ajmer so for long times he didn’t used to came to his home to met his wife nor allows her wife to come with him to delhi and when she was pregnant P send her to ajmer and told her that you go to your father’s house, we don’t have any money. During her pregnany he used to torture her physically as well as mentally. D gave birth to a child as a result of which they throws her out of house and told when threatens that if she again came here they would kill him.

18 | P a g e

Defendants Arguments: These are false allegations against him. He never compelled her to leave house she went by his own choice. Issue: Whether P is entitled to get divorce under section 13 of HMA Held: D was held liable. And P was entitled to get divorce as there was cruelty against her.

19 | P a g e