LexUMESH KUMAR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 14 S.C.R. 213
UMESH KUMAR
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 1305 of 2013)
SEPTEMBER 6, 2013
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.]
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art.21 - Right to life - Right
A
B
to reputation - Held: Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the
good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an
C
enquiry to reputation is a personal injury - Personal rights of
a human being include the right of reputation - A good
reputation is an element of personal security and is protected
by the Constitution equally with the right to enjoyment of life,
liberty and property.
D
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Charge
sheet -
Quashing of -
Held: Law does not prohibit
entertaining the petition uls.482 CrPC for quashing the charge
sheet even before the charges are framed or before the
application of discharge is filed or even during pendency of E
such application before the court concerned - High Court
cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the
accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the
framing of the charges - However, the inherent p6wer of the
Court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate
prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to
undergo the agony of a criminal trial.
F
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.482 - Quashing
of charges - Issue of malafides - Significance of - Held: In
G
case there is some substance in the allegations and material
exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case
is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings
should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had
213
H
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 14 S.C R.
A been initiated with ma/a fides to wreak vengeance or to
achieve an ulterior goal.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss.227 and 228 -
Framing of charges - Addition/alteration of charge - Scope
8 - Held: Charges can be added/altered at any stage of the trial,
before the pronouncement of the judgment to suit the
evidence adduced before the court, under the provisions of
s.216 CrPC -
The only legal requirement is that a witness
has to be recalled as provided uls.217 CrPC when a charge
C is altered or added by the court- In the instant case, the High
Court was approached by the appellant uls.482 CrPC at a
premature stage - At the said stage the High Court could
examine the chargesheet, case diary and other material in
the chargesheet which by no means can be termed as
substantive evidence -
Thus, order of High Court could not
D be termed as a final decision -
The order was subject to
further order which could be passed by the trial court uls.216
CrPC, on the basis of the evidence to be led during trial -
The impugned order of the High Court had been passed
taking into consideration the material which was available "at
E that stage" and it was still open to the trial court to add or alter .
the charges according to the evidence produced before i{
Evidence - Appreciation of - Admissibility of documents
procured by improper or illegal means - Held: Even if a
F document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is
no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness
is proved - If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter
how it has been obtained - However, as a matter of caution,
the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain
G evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility
would operate unfairly against the accused - More so, the
court must conclude that it is genuine and free from
tampering or mutilation.
Affidavit - Undated affidavit - Attestation of - Held: Is in
H utter disregard to the provisions of s. 139 CPC - Code of Civil
UMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 215
Procedure, 1908 - s.139 - Supreme Court Rules 1966 -
A
Or.XI, r.7- General Clauses Act 1897- s.3(3).
Affidavit - Essential characteristic of - Held: It should be
made on oath or affirmation before a person having authority
to administer the oath or affirmation - Duty to state on oath
8
on part of the deponent is sacrosanct - Oaths Act 1873.
The Central Government received a letter purportedly
written by 'M', a Member of Parliament, enclosing a
representation/complaint of All India Banjara Seva
Samithi asking for enquiry against respondent no.2, the
C
then DG (Vigilance and Enforcement) Department
alleging that he had amassed disproportionateExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.