⚖ MASTER CRIMINAL PROCEDURE & EVIDENCE CASE LAW TABLE
🔹 1. Muddamal / Property Release (Prohibition & General Law)
| No | Issue | Case | Citation | Principle / Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Muddamal release – vehicle / property | Harsh Rameshbhai Lashkari v. State of Gujarat | 18-08-2025 | Where quantity exceeded statutory limit (20 litres), trial court’s refusal to release muddamal was upheld. No error committed. |
| 2 | General power of release of property | Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat | (2002) 10 SCC 283 | Courts should release seized property promptly under Sections 451/457 CrPC to avoid deterioration. |
| 3 | Cannot bypass CrPC by writ | Khengarbhai Lakhabhai Dambhala v. State of Gujarat | — | When CrPC provides remedy for custody/disposal, writ under Art. 226 not maintainable. |
🔹 2. Applicability of New Law (IPC → BNS)
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Offences committed before 01-07-2024 | Vijay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan | Offences committed prior to BNS enforcement must be dealt with under IPC. Pending inquiry/trial/appeal governed by old law. |
🔹 3. Addition of Section in FIR / Charge
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Magistrate must give reasons | Bhanubhai Mafatbhai Bharwad v. State of Gujarat | Magistrate must record brief reasons while accepting addition of graver offence. “Kept with FIR” is not sufficient. |
| Same principle reiterated | Sureshkumar Taraji Marwadi v. State of Gujarat | Mechanical acceptance of addition report impermissible. |
🔹 4. Re-Arrest After Addition of Graver Offence
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Re-arrest after addition | Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand | Police cannot automatically arrest accused already on bail. Must seek cancellation under Sec 437(5)/439(2) CrPC. |
🔹 5. Deletion of Section
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Deletion procedure | Jagdish Nathabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat | IO cannot simply “delete” section and keep report with FIR. Must file charge-sheet or summary report; complainant must be heard. |
🔹 6. Section 156(3) CrPC / 175(3) BNSS
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Affidavit mandatory | Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. | 156(3) application must be supported by affidavit. |
| BNSS 175(3) safeguards | Om Prakash Ambedkar v. State of Maharashtra | Magistrate must consider SP representation + conduct inquiry before directing investigation. |
| Odisha view | Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha | Reasoned order mandatory before directing investigation. |
🔹 7. Discharge Stage
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| No mini trial | State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi | At Sec 227 stage, accused cannot produce defence material. Court considers only prosecution material. |
🔹 8. NDPS – Release of Vehicle
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Interim vehicle release | Bishwajit Dey v. State of Assam | In absence of bar, Sections 451/457 CrPC applicable even in NDPS matters. |
🔹 9. Private Complaint – Cognizance & Summons
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Satisfaction required | Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. | Magistrate must record prima facie satisfaction before issuing summons. |
| Non-mechanical order | Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate | Summoning is serious matter; application of mind required. |
| Composite order permissible | Amresh Kumar Dhiraj v. State of Jharkhand | Cognizance + process may be composite but must reflect application of mind. |
🔹 10. BNSS Section 223 (Private Complaint Procedure)
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Hearing accused before cognizance | Basanagouda R. Patil v. Shivananda S. Patil | Verification first, then notice, then cognizance. |
| Same clarified | Sashidhar Jagdishan v. State of Maharashtra | Accused to be heard before cognizance, not before verification. |
🔹 11. Meaning of Cognizance
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Tula Ram v. Kishore Singh | Cognizance = Judicial application of mind to facts for proceeding. |
🔹 12. Section 35 BNSS (Notice Before Arrest)
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI | Non-compliance with notice does not automatically mandate arrest. Arrest is last resort. |
| Vijay Pal Yadav v. Mamta Singh | Checklist under Arnesh Kumar must not be mechanical. Magistrate must apply mind. |
🔹 13. Production Without Arrest
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Siddharth v. State of U.P. | Section 170 does not mandate arrest before filing charge-sheet. |
🔹 14. Grounds of Arrest
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Distinction between “reasons” and “grounds” of arrest. Grounds must be communicated. |
| Mihir Rajesh Shah v. State of Maharashtra | Grounds of arrest mandatory under Articles 21 & 22(1). |
| State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan | Mere absence of written grounds not ipso facto illegal unless prejudice shown. |
🔹 15. Default Bail
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Enforcement Directorate v. Kapil Wadhawan | 60/90 days counted from first remand order. |
| Rakesh Kumar Paul v. State of Assam | 60 days if minimum punishment <10 years. |
🔹 16. Further Investigation
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala | Further investigation ≠ fresh investigation. |
| Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat | Magistrate can order further investigation even after charge-sheet. |
| Jyoti Sanjiv Rajput v. State of Gujarat | Magistrate cannot order de novo investigation. |
🔹 17. Charge-sheet Completeness
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P. | Charge-sheet complete if sufficient material exists to proceed. |
| Sameer Sandhir v. CBI | Additional documents may be produced later with court permission. |
🔹 18. NI Act
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Rohitbhai Jivanlal Patel v. State of Gujarat | Presumption under Section 139 NI Act is mandatory unless rebutted. |
🔹 19. Improper Charge
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Kalicharan v. State of U.P. | Non-compliance of Sections 213 & 313 CrPC vitiates trial. |
🔹 20. Section 319 CrPC
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab | Strong and cogent evidence required to summon additional accused. |
🔹 21. Primary & Secondary Evidence
| Case | Principle |
|---|---|
| Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. v. Rupdevsingh | Secondary evidence admissible only after foundational facts proved. |
⚖ ADDITIONAL LANDMARK JUDGMENTS TABLE
(Advanced Judicial Reference Sheet)
🔹 1. FIR – Registration Mandatory
| Issue | Case | Citation | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mandatory registration of FIR | Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh | (2014) 2 SCC 1 | Registration of FIR is mandatory if information discloses cognizable offence. Preliminary inquiry permissible only in limited categories. |
🔹 2. Delay in FIR
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Delay not always fatal | State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand | Delay must be explained; not automatically fatal to prosecution. |
🔹 3. Multiple FIRs
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Second FIR barred | T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala | Second FIR on same occurrence not maintainable. |
| Counter FIR allowed | Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash | Counter complaint by opposite party permissible. |
🔹 4. Arrest Guidelines
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Arrest safeguards | Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar | Police must follow Section 41 checklist before arrest in offences punishable up to 7 years. |
| DK Basu guidelines | D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal | Mandatory arrest memo and safeguards against custodial torture. |
🔹 5. Anticipatory Bail
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| No time limit unless specified | Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Anticipatory bail ordinarily continues till trial unless limited by court. |
| Parameters | Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab | Anticipatory bail to be granted based on judicial discretion; no rigid formula. |
🔹 6. Regular Bail Principles
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Bail is rule | State of Rajasthan v. Balchand | “Bail is rule, jail is exception.” |
| Triple test | P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement | Flight risk, tampering with evidence, influencing witnesses. |
🔹 7. Quashing under Section 482 CrPC
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Categories for quashing | State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | Seven illustrative categories for quashing FIR. |
| Compromise quashing | Gian Singh v. State of Punjab | High Court may quash non-compoundable offences if dispute is private and no societal impact. |
| Serious offences cannot be quashed | Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab | Heinous offences affecting society cannot be quashed on compromise. |
🔹 8. Framing of Charge
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Strong suspicion sufficient | Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal | At charge stage, court sees whether strong suspicion exists. |
| No meticulous evaluation | Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander | Court should not conduct mini trial at charge stage. |
🔹 9. Confession
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Extra-judicial confession | Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu | Can be basis of conviction if voluntary and trustworthy. |
| Section 27 Evidence Act | Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor | Only discovery portion of confession admissible. |
🔹 10. Dying Declaration
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Sole basis of conviction | Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay | Reliable dying declaration can sustain conviction without corroboration. |
| No absolute rule of doctor certification | Laxman v. State of Maharashtra | Medical certification desirable but not mandatory if evidence shows fitness. |
🔹 11. Hostile Witness
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence not wiped out | State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra | Testimony of hostile witness not completely rejected; reliable portion may be relied upon. |
🔹 12. Test Identification Parade (TIP)
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| TIP not substantive evidence | Budhsen v. State of U.P. | TIP is corroborative; identification in court is substantive evidence. |
🔹 13. Circumstantial Evidence
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Five golden principles | Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra | Chain must be complete; hypothesis consistent only with guilt. |
🔹 14. Benefit of Doubt
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Suspicion vs proof | Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh | If two views possible, one favouring accused must be adopted. |
🔹 15. Electronic Evidence
| Issue | Case | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| 65B certificate mandatory | Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer | Electronic record admissible only with 65B certificate. |
| Clarification | Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal | 65B certificate mandatory unless original device produced. |