(Following is the post containing Hindi Translation at the bottom)

Moot Court! In substance, moot court means enacting a virtual court scene for comprehending court function in practical mode by invocation of the applied side of law on a given problem.
As part of preliminary lesson, we commence the exercise with a practical problem which the intending motets are called upon to resolve, of course theoretically first.
Once a problem is comprehended, it has to be seen as a coin having its two sides, one opposed to the other. Problem:-
1. There is an already decided and decreed suit , Title Suit No. 1 of 2010, between two parties, as below:-                       raj veer & another ...,,...Plaintiffs.                                              Vs.                        Tanveer & another ........ Defendants. (Raj veer and Sukhveer filed the suit who are plaintiffs, against Tanveer and yusuf who are defendants.) 2. In the above suit, plaintiff and defendant filed documents which were admitted in evidence and were marked exhibits.
3. Some exhibits which were admitted and marked were private documents and some were public documents. Private documents were marked after formal proof, public documents were marked directly. 4. Defendant Tanveer obtained certified copies of all the above exhibits. 5. There is another suit title suit no. 2 of 2012 , filed by Tanveer. So in this suit Tanveer is Plaintiff. He was Defendant in that previous suit which is an already decided suit. 6. In that previous suit exhibits were marked , admiring public and private documents into evidence, as said above. Those certified copies are filed in the latter suit, I.e in TS no. 2 of 2012. It has been prayed that all certified copies are entitled to be marked exhibits as public documents. 7. One Defendant raise objection that these certified copies of exhibits are not public documents and as such the same can not be marked exhibits. 8.however there is another Defendant in the case who supports the plea of the Plaintiff on the ground that those certified copies of exhibits are two kinds of documents, one which he had filed in the said previous case and the other which his rival side who is plaintiff here had filed. Therefore, it was also in his interest to get the documents of his rival side exhibited otherwise it may be difficult for him to et those documents from the custody of the rival side for proving the same in the present case. Same difficulty would confront the plaintiff in respect the documents which this defendant had filed in the said previous case as present plaintiff's adverse party.
Note:-Evidence is of two kinds   . Oral and documentary. Document is two types, public document and private document . Any document filed in court has to be first of all admitted into evidence by proving it. Unless admitted into evidence, document can not be considered . To get admitted, public document needs no formalities. It will be directly admitted. But private documents need formal proof. That means it must be proved by means of oral evidence. See evidence act section 74 and preceding / succeeding sections.

मूट कोर्ट न्यायालय के व्यवहारिक पक्ष का व्यवाहरिक मंचन है जिसमे कानून के व्यवहारिक प्रावधानों का दिए गये काल्पनिक विवाद का समाधान पक्षकारों के माध्यम से किया जाता है.
इसके लिए आवश्यक है कि किसी कानूनी विवाद को सर्व प्रथम दिए गये विवाद से सम्बद्ध प्रावधानों का अध्ययन किया जाय और उसी के अलोक में पक्षकार अपना अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत करें.
निम्नलिखित विवाद पर विचार करें, जिसमे दो पक्ष हैं, आप किसी एक पक्ष कि तरफ से पैरवी कर सकते हैं.:-
वाद संख्या 1 /2010 निष्पादित हो चूका है जिसमे निम्न पक्षकार हैं:-
राजवीर और अन्य ----- वादी .
बनाम
तनवीर और अन्य ..... प्रतिवादी.
(राजवीर और सुखवीर ने वाद दायर किया था प्रतिवादी तनवीर और युसूफ के विरुद्ध)
उक्त वाद में वादी और प्रतिवादी दोनों तरफ से दस्तावेज़ दाखिल हुए जिसे प्रदर्श चिन्हित किया गया साक्ष्य के रूप में ग्रहण करते हुए जिसकी प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि पक्षकारों नें न्यायालय से प्राप्त किया. उक्त प्रदाशों में पक्षकारों ने पब्लिक और प्राइवेट, दोनों ही किस्म के दस्तावेजों को प्रदर्श चिन्हित कराया था. अतः प्रदर्शों कि प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि उन्ही पब्लिक और प्राइवेट दस्तावेजों की है जिन्हें प्रदर्श कराया गया.
इन्ही पक्षकारों के बीच एक दूसरा वाद लंबित है वाद संख्या 2 /२०१२ जिसमे उपरोक्त प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपियों को दाखिल करते हुए अपेक्षा की गयी है कि ये पब्लिक डॉक्यूमेंट हैं जिन्हें साक्ष्य के रूप में प्रदर्श चिन्हित किया जाय .
दो में से एक प्रतिवादी का ऑब्जेक्शन है कि मूल दस्तावेज़ को ही प्रदर्श चिन्हित कराया जा सकता है, प्रमाणित प्रतिलिपि को नहीं. लेकिन दुसरे प्रतिवादी चिन्हित कराये जाने के पक्ष में हैं, इस आधार पर कि उपरोक्त दस्तावेज़ कुछ उनके कुछ विपक्ष के हैं, अतः यह दोनों पक्षों के हक़ में है कि उन्हें चिन्हित किया जाये अन्यथा एक पक्ष को विरोधी के दस्तावेज़ को हासिल करने और चिन्हित कराने में कानूनी और व्यवहारिक व्यवधान होगा.

Moot Court!

The present post is dedicated to the students of TNB Law College, Bhagalpur for whom I'm engaging  myself in special lectures which aim at imparting moot court clinical paper preparations .
In substance, moot court means enacting a virtual court scene for comprehending court function in practical mode by invocation of the applied side of law on a given problem.
As part of preliminary lesson, we commence the exercise with a practical problem which the intending motets are called upon to resolve, of course theoretically first. 
Once a problem is comprehended, it has to be seen as a coin having its two sides, one opposed to the other.

Problem:-

1. There is an already decided and decreed suit , Title Suit No. 1 of 2010, between two parties, as below:-
                      raj veer & another ...,,...Plaintiffs.
                                             Vs.
                       Tanveer & another ........ Defendants.
(Raj veer and Sukhveer filed the suit who are plaintiffs, against Tanveer and yusuf who are defendants. )
2. In the above suit, plaintiff and defendant filed documents which were admitted in evidence and were marked exhibits.
3. Some exhibits which were admitted and marked were private documents and some were public documents. Private documents were marked after formal proof, public documents were marked directly.
4. Defendant Tanveer obtained certified copies of all the above exhibits. 
5. There is another suit title suit no. 2 of 2012 , filed by Tanveer. So in this suit Tanveer is Plaintiff. He was Defendant in that previous suit which is an already decided suit. 
6. In that previous suit exhibits were marked , admiring public and private documents into evidence, as said above. Those certified copies are filed in the latter suit, I.e in TS no. 2 of 2012. It has been prayed that all certified copies are entitled to be marked exhibits as public documents. 
7. One Defendant raise objection that these certified copies of exhibits are not public documents and as such the same can not be marked exhibits. 
8.however there is another Defendant in the case who supports the plea of the Plaintiff on the ground that those certified copies of exhibits are two kinds of documents, one which he had filed in the said previous case and the other which his rival side who is plaintiff here had filed. Therefore, it was also in his interest to get the documents of his rival side exhibited otherwise it may be difficult for him to et those documents from the custody of the rival side for proving the same in the present case. Same difficulty would confront the plaintiff in respect the documents which this defendant had filed in the said previous case as present plaintiff's adverse party.
Evidence is of two kinds   . Oral and documentary. Document is two types, public document and private document . Any document filed in court has to be first of all admitted into evidence by proving it. Unless admitted into evidence, document can not be considered . To get admitted, public document needs no formalities. It will be directly admitted. But private documents need formal proof. That means it must be proved by means of oral evidence. See evidence act section 74 and preceding / succeeding sections.

Not just quite a few, I believe most, of our ordeals are those which two segments of the State mutely contribute. These two are, judiciary and the fourth state, the media.
Their tacit role escape attention. In this regard, media has twin role as a major participant in the creation of public miseries. First one is a natural outcome of incompetence. Take any news story. Its content would speak for the incompetence of the scribe to address the issue covered therein. Second one is media's near non-concern about the judicial machinery. The legal proceedings , which may extend or touch upon the non-exercise or abuse of statutory functions of the police, are out of the bound areas for the media that is marred by perceptional inadequacies for want of expertise or expert guidance.
The shortcomings in the media has direct bearing on the sluggish pace at which the justice delivery system functions. Those who know little but pretend to be all knowing, in which art we have excelled in recent years, entertain a misconception that the tardy pace of the Indian legal apparatus is something natural as being an inevitable product of dilatory character of the laws. This misconception subsists primarily because of the fact that the media has relegated the justice delivery system to a dark region from which a respectable distance must be maintained, lest a misadventure might land an enthusiast into trouble . To explain the situation, one may visualise the reaction of a novice who is asked to climb an electric pole to remedy an electrical fault responsible for power tripping. What is needed is to find a right person who is an adept rather than hearing the dangers involved in the requisite act. Media has not been able to find a set of adepts who would address legal reportings and have chosen to abandon the field, maintaing only cosmetic presence.
In the result, the judicial system has , over a period of time, receded beyond public view. Why only public view? Even its controlling functionaries might be wholly unaware of its underlying deficiencies which are getting worse with each passing day.

(More to follow)

The movies came to Bihar in the early years of 20th century. J F Madan had acquired the 'Elphinstone Theatre Co.' of Bombay in 1902 and converted it into 'The Elphinstone Bioscope Co'. 
Patna had its own Elphinstone Theatre which became the Elphinstone cinema, and started showing short silent films. Close on its heels, two brothers felt inspired and were motivated into starting a joint venture, at Bhagalpur, named after their daughters, nick named as Madhu and Laxami . The combination made it Madhu Laxami . That was the name they gave to the first silent cinema theatre which a pre-existing warehouse premises housed for some couple of years. Bhagalpur got its first silent cinema with a small seating capacity of a hundred or two. Cinema, even though silent, drew huge crowd as it was a long jump, so to say, for its local audience whose upper limit for entertainment had so far been theatres which itself was mostly unavailable in its then advanced form, as theatre's primitive variants only used to be available in periodical fairs or festivals. 
The joint venture of the two brothers, babu Akhileshwari Sahai and Babu Nakuleshwari Sahai  was thus a run away success. Their success came in for their close friends' admiration, but one of his close friends , a local celebrity and Zamindar, admiringly questioned their imbecility about choosing a wrong venue, capacity wise as also  situationally. Their Zamindar  friend said he detested visiting the ramshackle theatre which was situated around an already crowded railway station area. He advised them to shift the theatre to his space situated in the then al most deserted Khalifabag locality which was off the main road as well as fully enclosed , bearing a large area that would afford all facilities for developing their entertainment industry.
By this time whispers were already in the air, signalling the possible advent of the talkie era.
Enthused, the two brothers gabbed the opportunity that thus came their way. In a brief span of time, Madhu Laxami Cinema got shut down and its infrastructure shifted whole hog to the new site situated at Shekhawat Hussain Lane of mohalla khalifabag. It carried a new name, "Picture Palace" , which screened silent movies but it updated itself into talkies as soon as the first talkie variant arrived in 1931, namely "Alam Ara".  

Likewise, with reference to Patna, After the advent of Talkies,  Elphinstone Cinema had started showing films with sound. Its ownership changed after the collapse of the Madan empire in 1930s. There is mention of another silent cinema theatre built in China Kothi, Patna, which withered away after the advent of Talkies in 1931. The first 'Talkie Theatre' of Patna was built at Babu Bazar, south-west Patna, debuting with the talkie, 'Veer Abhimanyu', in 1933 or 1934. Not long after, a huge fire destroyed the theatre, caused by the highly volatile nitrate film reels. It was never rebuilt. From this account, it transpires that Elphinstone graduated into talkies in later years. As such, despite being the first movie theatre of Bihar, it lagged behind in retaining its first place as the talkie theatre, conceding it it to Picture Palace which was upgraded earlier in time frame, thereby ranking as Bihar's oldest movie talkies, not movie theatre because that space stood pre-occupied by Patna's Elphinstone which may further boast of sustaining itself till date whereas its rival Picture Palace which over took it in the race of becoming the first movie talkies of Bihar has since withered, shutting down in 1986, its premises fragmented into un-symmetrically plotted low class market that has devoured the mortal history of cinema in Bihar, besides other things of not much value, save and except that which it stealthily hides from public vision, the failed judicial system. That is what this write up contemplates to address.     

CONFESSION AND ADMISSION

CONFESSION AND ADMISSION

CONFESSION

(JUDICIAL & EXTRA JUDICIAL)

AND ADMISSION

Admissions

All confessions are admissions but every admission may not be a confession. To be a confession, admission should contain an acknowledgment of the guilt.Therefore, all confession are admissions, but every admission may not be a confession.

Now let us see what is meant by ADMISSION.

Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admission which means a statement (oral or documentary or contained in electronic form) which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the person and under the circumstances mentioned in section 18 to 23 of the Indian Evidence Act.

An admission must be clear, precise, unequivocal, categorical,not vague or ambiguous . An admission ,is the best evidence that an opposite party can rely upon, though not conclusive, it is nevertheless decisive on the point unless proved erroneous or is validly allowed to be withdrawn.

Evidentiary Value of ADMISSION

Admissions though not conclusive proof of matters admitted, but they are relevant under section 21 of the Indian Evidence Act. An admission is not conclusive unless it amounts to estoppal. It may be proved to be wrong but unless proved it is a very strong piece of evidence against the maker thereof and is decisive of the matter, though not conclusive.

In Bhogilal Pandya v/s State AIR 1959 S.C. 356, it is discussed by the Apex Court,“The first group of sections in this Act in which the word statement occurs, are section 17 to 21, which deals with admissions. Section 17 defines the word admission. Section 18 to 20 lay down what statement are admissions against persons making them. The words used in section 18 to 21 in this connection are statements made by. It is not disputed that statements made by persons may be used as admissions against them even though they may not have been communicated to any other person. For eg. Statements in the account books of a person showing that he was indebted to another person are admissions which can be used against him even though these statements were never communicated to any other person.”

The provision that “admission is not conclusive proof” is to be considered in regard to two features of evidence :

1 The weight to be attached to an admission, would depend upon whether the admission is clear, unambiguous and relevant evidence; and

2 Even a proved admission sought to be used against its maker who as a witness is under cross-examination, he should be given an opportunity, if the admission is to be used against him to offer his explanation and to clear up the point of ambiguity or dispute.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Maharashtra -versus- Sukhdeo Singh, reported in 1992 (3) SCC 700, has held that, “The answer given by the accused in response to his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. can be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial. This much is clear on a plain reading on the above sub-section.Therefore, though not strictly evidence, sub-section permits that it may be taken into consideration in the said inquiry or trial”.

Hon'ble Apex Court, in case of Narain Singh -versus- State of Punjab, reported in 1964 (1) Cr.L.J. 730, has held that, “It is not open to the court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct is supported by the evidence on the record. If the accused admits to have done an act which would be the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from explanation”.

ADMISSIONS in CIVIL CASES

Section 23 of the Indian Evidence Act, deals with relevancy of admissions in civil cases, which provides that --

no admission is relevant in civil cases if is made either upon an express condition that evidence of it not be given, or under circumstances from which the court can infer that the parties agreed together that evidence of it should not be given.

Confession

Confession is a statement made by accused which either admits in terms of offence or at any rate substantiate all the facts which constitute the offence.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sahib Singh -versus- State of Haryana reported in 1997 Cri.L.J. 3956, while defining the word confession, has observed that, “ a confession must either be an express acknowledgment of guilt of the offence charged, certain and complete in itself, or it must admit substantially all the facts which constitute the offence”.

Confession is defined in Black's Dictionary

A voluntary statement made by person charged with commission of crime, communicated to another wherein he acknowledges himself to be guilty of the offence charged.

Confession may be divided in two classes :

1 Judicial

2 Extra judicial

Judicial confessions are those which are made before magistrate or court in the course of judicial proceedings.

Extra judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere than before magistrate or court. Extra judicial confessions are generally those made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confession under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stretch when section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply.

Evidentiary Value of Confessions :

It must be established that a confession is voluntary and also it is true. For the purpose of establishing its truth it is necessary to examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the prosecution evidence and the probabilities of the case.

Extra Judicial Confessions:

An extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in a fit state of mind can be relied upon by the court. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. In the process of proof of Extra Judicial confession, the court is to be satisfied that it is not the result of inducement , threat or promise. Extra judicial confession possess a high probative value as it emanates from the person, who committed the crime, provided it is free from suspicion.

While appreciating the Extra judicial confession, the court has to consider the relevant factors like-

i. to whom it is made,

ii. the time and place of making it;

iii. the circumstances, in which it was made and the court has to look for any suspicious circumstances.

Evidentiary Value of Extra Judicial Confession :

It is not open to any court to start with the presumption that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. If the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction. However, section 25 and 26 provides exception to this general rule.

Section 25 to 27 of Indian Evidence Act are related to confession made by accused in custody before police.

Section 25 – Confession to police officer not to be proved :-

No confession made to police officer shall be proved as against the person accused of any offence.

Section 26 – Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him :-

No confession made by any person whilst he is in custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate shall be proved as against such person.

In order to apply section 25 and section 26, it is desirable to consider as to who is a “POLICE OFFICER”.

Unless an officer who is invested under any special law with the powers of investigation under the code, including the power to submit the report under section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, he cannot be described as a police officer under section 25 of the Evidence Act.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in various cases has described as to who is a POLICE OFFICER under various acts, within the ambit of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The various cases includes

1 State of Punjab -vs- Barkat RamAIR 1962 SC 276

2 Rajaram -vs- State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 828

3 Badaku -vs- State of Mysore AIR 1966 SC 1746

4 Ramesh -vs- State of W.B. AIR 1970 SC 940

5 Illias -vs- Collector of Custom AIR 1970 SC 1065

6 State of U.P. -vs- Durgaprasad AIR 1974 SC 2136

7 Balkishan -vs- State of Mah AIR 1981 SC 379

8 Rajkumar -vs- Union of India AIR 1991 SC 45

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of State of Rajasthan v/s Ajit singh and other reported in (2008) 1 SCC 601 has held that, section 15 of T.A.D.A. 1987, is a clear departure from the general law that a statement made to a police officer is not permissible in evidence.

Section 15 of the TADA Act 1987and section 18 of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act 1999, provides that, certain confessions made to police officer to be taken into consideration. The police officer recording the confession should not be below the rank of the Superintendent of Police.

Under both the acts it is mandatory to send the recorded confessions forthwith to the Chief Judicial Magistrate or the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate having the local jurisdiction over the area in which such confession is recorded, and such Magistrate shall forward the recorded confession so received to the designated/ special court which may take cognizance of the offence.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Kanhaiyyalal v/s Union of India reported in AIR 2008 SC 1044, has held that, “An officer vested with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station under sec. 53 of the NDPS Act is not a police officer with the meaning of section 25 of the Evidence Act. Thus it is clear that a statement made under sec. 67 of NDPS act is not the same as a statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C. unless made under threat or coercion. It is this vital difference which allows a statement made under section 67 of the NDPS act to be used as a confession against the person making it and excludes it from the operation of section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act”.

Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with recording of confessions and statements.

The conjoint reading of section 26 of Indian Evidence Act and section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the exact meaning to record the confession of accused.

Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 further speaks that, “A Metropolitan or Judicial Magistrate, may whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this chapter or under any law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial”. It further provides that – No confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.

Exception to Section 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act.

Section 27 – How much of information received from accused may be proved – Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequences of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.

Various requirements of this section :

1 The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue.

2 The fact must have been discovered.

3 The discovery must have been in consequence of some informationreceived from the accused and not byaccused's own act.

4 The person giving the information must be the accused of any offence.

5 He must be in the custody of a police officer.

6 The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from the accused in custody must be deposed to.

7 Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is in-admissible.

Confession before the Magistrate:

Section 164 of Cr.P.C. deals with the provision of recording of the confessions and statements by the Magistrate. Confession of a person is also made before the Magistrate or Court in the course of judicial proceedings

Following is the prescribed procedure for recording confession.

1 Confession should ordinarily berecorded in open court and during court hours.

2 Police officer should be removed from the court room unless in the opinion of the Magistrate, the duty of ensuring the safe custody of the accused cannot be left tothe other attendants.

3 Court should impress upon accused that he is no longer in police custody.

4 There must be inquiry by the court to the accused about ill-treatment on improper conduct or inducement on the part of police and in spite the alleged ill-treatment, misconduct or inducement, he adheres to his intention of making a confessional statement, the Magistrate should give the accused a warning that he in not bound to make confession and that if he does so, it will be taken down and may thereafter be used as evidence against him. A note of the warning given to the accused should be kept on record.

5 The Magistrate should give accused a reasonable time not less than 24 hours for reflection.

6 After accused is produced again, he be ascertained as to whether he is willing to make a confession. If the accused expresses his desire to confession, all the police officer should be removed from the court room unless his safe custody entrusted to other attendants. In that case minimum police officer should be allowed to remain inthe court room.

7 Magistrate then inquire the accused about the length of time during which he has been in custody of police.

8 Provisions of section 163, 164 of Cr.P.C. should be scrupulously followed.

9 Court has to satisfy that impression caused by any suchinducement, threat or promise has been fully removed.

10 Before recording confession, the Magistrate is bound toquestion the accused person unless upon that questioning he has reason to believe that the confession is voluntary, he cannot make the memorandum at the foot of the record.

11 Before recording a confession, the Magistrate should question the accused with a view to ascertaining the exactcircumstances in which his confession is being made and the connection of the police with it under clause iv, vi, x of the criminal manual.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Babubhai versus State of Gujrat, reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 786, has held that, “while recording the confession oath should not be administer to the person while making the confession”.

12 Magistrate should add to the certificate, the ground on which he believes that the confession is genuine , the precaution which he took to remove accused frominfluence of police and the time , if any given to accused for reflection.

13 It is mandatory on the part of Magistrate as per sec. 164 (4) that the confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused and it has to be signed by the person making the confession and to make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect-

“ I have explained to --------- ,that he is not bound to make a confession, and that if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him”

Magistrate.

Confession should also be recorded in question answer form.

It is mandatory on the part of the Magistrate that while recording the confession of a person he should follow section 163, 164 of the code of criminal procedure scrupulously.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Ramsingh v/s Sonia reported in 2007 Cr.L.J 1642, has held that, “If magistrate failed to question about voluntariness of confession to the person making confession, but in evidence before court he states that he had asked such question to the person making confession and also certificate as mentioned in section 164 of Cr.P.C is appended to the confession then such confession cannot be discarded on the ground of such irregularity in view of section 463 of the Cr.P.C.

If the First Information of an offence is given by the accused to a Police Officer, and that information admits his own guilt, it is a confession which cannot be proved under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act against the accused.

Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Aghnoo Nagesia -versus- State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1966 SC 119, has observed that, “(18) If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by S.25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section 25 is lifted by Section 27”.

                  T.N.B. Law College
                                      BHAGALPUR-812001 (BIHAR)
                     (A Constituent Unit of T.M.Bhagalpur University)

No.  …………………….Dated-
To
……………………………………..

…………………………………….

…………………………………..
Sub: PROPOSED WORKSHOPON :MITIGATION OF THE MENACING BUILD UP OF
ARREARS OF CIVIL CASES (कार्यशाला -लंबित वादों के अम्बार से निपटने के संभावनाओ की तलाश)
Sir,
This institution takes pleasure in informing that the subject cited workshop is going to be organized wherein participation of enlightened people in the field of law is solicited.
Your standing and experience in the field prompts us to seek your valued participation in the workshop. The enclosure would offer a glimpse into the outlook, context, purview and pursuit of the said contemplated endeavor. The same is intended at opening a window that elicits your valuable and experience-based analysis of the broad reasons that accounts for the ever-increasing pendency of civil cases, be that for whatever reasons, but especially focusing your views on pragmatic steps, if any, which may mitigate the problem within the existing legal frame-work and set up.
Your write up may be used as resource which would form basis for the discussions to be organized at the workshop. The same would target assimilation of fruitful conclusions. Fruitful means fruitful indeed, which, once implemented, may usher the presently over-loaded legal system, into an envisaged legal environment that might promise speedy remedy. Our exploration warrants the use and application of sleek legal tactics that you might suggest with intent to curbing slack state of existing legal ordeals.
Your contribution may kindly be forwarded within a fortnight. Thereafter, an intimation would be sent, as regards the exact date and time of the workshop.
Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,

Encl.:- As above.S.K.Pandey, Prof.-incharge.    

कार्यशाला 
लंबित वादों के अम्बार से निपटने के संभावनाओ की तलाश 

नेशनल कोर्ट मैनेजमेंट सिस्टम्स नामक एक योजना जो भारत सरकार के कानून मंत्रालय ने भारत के मुख्य न्यायाधीश की प्रेरणा से बना और उसके आधार पर जारी घोषणा पत्र को देखने से प्रतीत होगा कि न्यायालयों में लंबित वाद के बढ़ते दबाब देश के शीर्ष न्ययालय के लिए कितनी बड़ी चिंता का विषय बना हुआ है जिसके समाधान के लिए उपरोक्त योजना बनायी गयी है.
इस विषय से सम्बंधित विस्तृत जानकारी कानून मंत्रालय के अधिकारिक वेबसाइट पर उपलब्ध है. तत्काल अवलोकनार्थ इसे अनुलग्नक के तौर पर अंग्रेजी भाषा में उधृत किया जा रहा है.
शीर्ष न्यायलय की उपरोक्त चिंता टी एन बी विधि महाविद्यालय, भागलपुर, के लिए भी अगर चिंता नहीं तो चिंतन का विषय तो बनना ही चाहिए, क्योंकि जो समस्या आज विकराल स्वरुप ले चुकी है उसका स्वरुप आने वाले समय में क्या होगा यह सोंच कर भी डर लगता है कि जब आज की वह पीढ़ी जो विधि फैकल्टी में अध्ययन कर रही है उसे न्यायालयों में पहुँच कर उपचार प्राप्त करने या कराने लायक व्यवस्था मिलेगी भी या फिर विरासत में कभी ना सुलझ पाने लायक अनसुलझी गुत्थियाँ ही मिलेगी.
जब शीर्ष अदालत ने उपरोक्त उलझनों का संज्ञान ले लिया है तो क्या विधि संस्थानों और विधिज्ञों का यह दायित्व नहीं बनता है कि इस दिशा में कुछ हिस्सेदारी निभाई जाये?
उल्लेखनीय है कि असल समस्या जिला अदालतों के स्तर पर है जिसे शीर्ष न्यायालय सुलझाना चाहती है पर कानूनी बिंदु पर इस सम्बन्ध में आने वाले अड़चन और किन्तु-परन्तु को विधिज्ञ अनदेखी नहीं कर सकते हैं.
मात्र योजना का गठन योजना की सफलता की कोई गारंटी नहीं हो सकती और वह भी तब जब कि कानून इस सम्बन्ध में खुद अड़चन हो, जैसा कि है.
इस सम्बन्ध में संविधान की अनुछेद २२७ का उल्लेख करना प्रासंगिक होगा जिसके प्रभाव से जिला न्यायालयों का नियंत्रण उच्च न्यायलय में निहित होता है, जब कि उच्चतम न्यायलय का कोई भी प्रशाशनिक नियंत्रण न तो उच्च न्यायलय के उपर होता है और जिला न्यायालयों पर तो बिलकुल ही नहीं होता है. यह अलग विषय है कि उच्चतम न्यायलय द्वारा अधिघोषित कानून या कानून की व्याख्या अकाट्य होती है किन्तु इस संप्रभुता का कोई प्रभाव प्रशाशनिक पक्ष पर नहीं के बराबर होता है. यही कारण है कि उच्चतम न्यायालय  की उपरोक्त चिंता आज की परिस्थिति में मात्र एक शुभेच्छा है जिसकी सफलता विधिज्ञ समुदाय के सहभागिता के बिना शायद संभव नहीं है.
इसी सोंच के साथ यह संस्थान एक कार्यशाला आयोजित कर रहा है जिसके समक्ष मुख्य तौर पर यह एजेंडा है कि उन कारणों का पता लगाये कि आखिरकार वे कौन से कारण हैं कि जहाँ एक ओर लंबित वादों का अम्बार नयी ऊंचाईयों का निर्माण कर रहा है वहीँ दूसरी ओर उनके निपटने की कोई ढोस सम्भावना बनती नहीं दिखती है.
तो ऐसे में इस कार्यशाला के समक्ष यह विषय है कि उन कारणों कि पहचान कि जाये किसके फलस्वरूप उपरोक्त विकरालता सुरसा राक्षसी का भी रिकॉर्ड तोड़ रही है और हम सब निरीह बने बैठे हैं. आँखों से ओझल हो रहे न्यायिक उपचार क्या कानूनी प्रावधानों की अनावश्यक जटिलता की उपज है, या फिर कार्य कुशलता के आभाव की , या फिर विपरीत मानसिकता की, या फिर कुछ और जो हम या तो देख नहीं पा रहे हैं या फिर सोंच नहीं पा  रहे हैं.
कारण और निवारण इस कार्यशाला  की प्रथम  और अन्तिम प्राथमिकता है जिसके लिए विधि से सम्बंधित मुख्यधारा में जो भी प्रबुद्ध विधिज्ञ या विधि से किसी भी रूप में सम्बंधित प्रोफेशनल, शिक्षक, विद्यार्थी , इत्यादि हैं उनकी सहभागिता वांछित है.
  
अनुलग्नक-१.    












PROPOSED WORKSHOP
ON 
MITIGATION OF THE MENACING BUILD UP OF
ARREARS OF CIVIL CASES.

National Court Management Systems’ (NCMS) for Enhancing Timely Justice.
The following import from the official website of the Ministry of Law&Justice, at the behest of the Apex Court, captioned as the Scheme of ‘National Court Management Systems’ (NCMS) for Enhancing Timely Justice, which is founded on the ‘NCMS Policy & Action Plan’ document released by the CJI on 27.9.2012.
A cursory reading would make the picture clear:- 

" India has one of the largest judicial systems in the world – with over 3 crore cases and sanctioned strength of some 18,871 Judges (as on 31.12.2011). The system has expanded rapidly in the last three decades, reflecting India’s social, economic and political development in this period. It is estimated that the number of Judges/Courts expanded six fold while the number of cases expanded by double that number – twelve fold. The judicial system is set to continue to expand significantly over the next three decades, rising, by the most conservative estimate, to at least about 15 crore of cases requiring at least some 75,000 Courts/Judges.
There is an urgent need to make the Judicial System ‘five plus free’ (i.e., free of cases more than five years old). There is an equally urgent need to shorten the average life cycle of all cases – not only time spent within each court, but also total time in the judicial system as a whole, to bring the average to no more than about one year in each court.  There is also need to systematically maintain and continuously seek to enhance quality and responsiveness of justice.
To meet all these challenges facing the Judiciary effectively, the Chief Justice of India, after consulting the Minister of Law and Justice in the Government of India, established the National Court Management Systems (NCMS) in May this year and recently released a ‘Policy & Action Plan’ document to implement it. The National Court Management Systems will be under overall control of  the Chief Justice of India. It will primarily deal with policy issues. NCMS will include the following six main elements:
(1)        A National Framework of Court Excellence (NFCE) that will set measurable performance standards for Indian courts, addressing issues of quality, responsiveness and timeliness;
(2)        A system for monitoring and enhancing the performance parameters established in the NFCE on quality, responsiveness and timeliness;
(3)        A system of Case Management to enhance user friendliness of the Judicial System;
(4)        A National System of Judicial Statistics (NSJS) to provide a common national platform for recording and maintaining judicial statistics from across the country. NSJS should provide real time statistics on cases and courts that will enable systematic analysis of key factors such as quality, timeliness and efficiency of the judicial system across courts, districts/states, types of cases, stages of cases, costs of adjudication, time lines of cases, productivity and efficiency of courts, use of budgets and financial resources. It would enhance transparency and accountability;
(5)        A Court Development Planning System that will provide a framework for systematic five year plans for the future development of the Indian judiciary. The planning system will include individual court development plans for all the courts; and
(6)        A Human Resource Development Strategy setting standards on selection and training of judges of subordinate courts.
The administrative and technological “backbone” of these systems will be maintained at the Supreme Court and overseen by a Committee consisting of the representatives.
Specific proposals will be developed in each of these areas for consideration and implementation by and through the High Courts.
National Court Management Systems Committee (N.C.M.S.C.):
Specific proposals for the Court Management System as outlined above will be developed by an 18 member National Court Management Systems Committee (N.C.M.S.C.), which, subject to directions of  the Chief Justice of India, shall consist of the following:
Chair:
A Jurist/Domain Expert nominated by the Chief Justice of India. He will be paid honorarium and given such facilities as may be decided by the Chief Justice of India for Chairing N.C.M.S.C.
Accordingly, Prof. (Dr.) G. Mohan Gopal, former Director, National Judicial Academy, a Jurist, has been nominated by the CJI to be the Chairperson of National Court Management Systems Committee. Prof. Mohan Gopal will also be Member of the Advisory Committee.
Members:
1.    Four Sitting Judges (one from each zone in India) nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
2.    Secretary General of the Supreme Court (ex-officio).
3.    Joint Secretary and Mission Director (National Mission for Justice Delivery and Legal Reforms), Department of Justice, Government of India (ex-officio).
4.    Registrar Generals of three High Courts nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
5.    Director, National Judicial Academy.
6.    Two practising Advocates nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
7.    An expert Statistician, nominated by the Chief Statistician of India.
8.    An expert in management of decision making systems and process re-engineering, nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
9.    An expert in Computer Technology relevant to Court Management, nominated by the  Chief Justice of India.
10.   A representative of a NGO working for improving access to     justice and user friendliness of courts, nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
11.  Additional Registrar, Information and Statistics, Supreme Court of India (ex-officio) – Member Secretary.
            Accordingly, the following were nominated by the CJI as Members of the NCMSC:
(a)          Shi Justice D. Murugesan;
(b)          Shri Justice A.M. Khanwilkar;
(c)          Shri Justice Amitava Roy;
(d)          Shri Justice B.D. Ahmed; 
(e)          Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat;
(f)           Registrar General, Calcutta High Court; and
(g)          Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka.
The Committee shall be supported by necessary staff and facilities.
·         Advisory Committee:
The NCMS Committee is to be advised by an Advisory Committee consisting of two Judges of Supreme Court of India and such other Chief Justices/Judges of High Courts as may be nominated by the Chief Justice of India. The Chair of the NCMS Committee shall be a member of the Advisory Committee. Secretary, Department of Justice, Government of India, shall be Ex-officio Member of Advisory Committee and the Secretary-General of the Supreme Court shall be the convenor of the Advisory Committee.
Accordingly, the following were nominated to be the Members of the Advisory Committee:
(a)                  Shri Justice Altamas Kabir, currently the Chief Justice of India;
(b)                  Shri Justice P. Sathasivam, Judge, Supreme Court of India; and
(c)                  Shri Justice P. C. Tatia, Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court.
All expenses in connection with the functioning of the NCMS, including salary and allowances, etc., of the Staff, will be met from the sanctioned Budget of the Supreme Court of India.
Before finding an answer, as to how the above spirit would descend down the grass-roots level, it is felt advisable to state that the Apex Court has no direct power of superintendence on the subordinate judiciary. The constitution confers that power on the High Court under Article 227. Pursuant thereto, High Court exercises that power   suo motu as well as upon invocation. An application under Article 227 of the constitution is entertainable under High Court's writ jurisdiction. These days this power of superintendence invoked in matters where civil revision is barred under Section 115 CPC. The 2002 amendment in CPC has shrunk the civil revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, hence where ends of justice so requires, the power of superintendence is invoked to seek relief which the unamended CPC earlier provided
This article comes handy in seeking High Court’s intervention in matters where the trial court’s lapses in disposing of cases is brought to High Court’s notice and a direction is sought
Suffice it to say that the power of superintendence is exercised by the High Court in the above said two broad categories, suo motu and when invoked. The former is a routine practice, the latter is not
The High Court maintains an inspection cell .Each District is allotted to one of its judges who conducts periodical inspection of the district court under its allotment
It is this routine inspections in which deadwoods may be identified and pruned
However, the Apex Court’s vision in the above regard does not seem to have descended in the manner expected.

Be that as it may, suffice it to say that there is absolute unanimity amid bench, bar and litigants that the enormity of pendency of cases has attained alarming proportions. Every single addition in the piles of pending cases threaten to emerge as the last straw on the camel's back.
It is this threat which compels the academicians in law accompanied by the  prodigies among its students to delve into the intricacies and rigmarole in the legal procedures with intent to finding out the elements responsible for turning the justice delivery system into an apparatus that is proving to be inefficacious, if not counter productive.
With that end in view, the T.N.B.Law College, Bhagalpur , contemplates holding a workshop, soliciting therein the participation of legal experts on the civil side who may as well be called upon to elicit live experiences and opinions from the bench, in that it may not be quite feasible for the members of the bench to gargle it out in the open but in conformity with the bar-bench relationship, the members of the bar may elicit the requisite view points without the members of the bench suffering any delicacies or reservations.
Materially and substantially, the proposed workshop aims at finding out the subsisting constraints in the legal system, if any, that accounts for the ever increasing build up arrears of cases.
Upon identification thereof, the focus of the workshop would be on evolving ways and means within the existing frame work and also within the existing resources, to mitigate the issue, as also to discover whether enlargement of resources would be imperative and indispensible  therefor.

Only a die hard muslim bearing that mindset which the post independence ruling class has fed into the inflexible mindset of muslims, can hold a view of this kind. In what way was the 2002 gujarat riots unforgivable whereas bhagalpur riots have been not only forgotten but forgiven too. Why is the muzaffernagar riots not in the reckoning at all. And above all, why no one, neither this commentator, nor the so called secular parties, nor even the bjp refers to the godhara episode while recalling and referring to the 2002 gujarat riots. And more over, what exactly modi did or contributed which satyendra singh, the then cm, bihar in case of bhagalpur riots of 1989 may not be accused of, or akhilesh in case of muzaffernagar riots. And above all, why is it that whoever outpours venom against modi , seems so emotionally charged whereas there is nothing so specific in case of gujarat as much as was bhagalpur.
It is time to detest. What to detest, can u guess? Detest that the framers of the constitution committed a grave omission, they omitted to give the right of franchise to animals and insects, which segment is only perfunctorily covered through those segments whose responses at election times represent that very characteristic. So if bona fide candate is rejected, dont lament, simply thank the Authors of constitution .

Bhagalpur law students have launched a trial, placing in the dock the Union Government, Delhi Government, Delhi Police and the Media.
All are named accused in a case now under its trial at a Moot Court Proceeding which the Ll.B Part II students have tastefully picked up.
The broad premise of the Moot Court trial postulates Arvind Kejriwal's recent Dharna episode to be a constitutional battle which the accused parties fought on the streets of Delhi, which gives rise to a serious constitutional issue which none, save and except the Apex Court of India, would resolve, rather adjudicate.
The warring parties at the trial are represented by as may as four broad groups of participants, one representing the Union of India, other the State of Delhi, the third the Delhi Police and last but not the least, the Media through the Union Information and Broacasting Ministry.
Each four groups, constitute prosecutor in its own right, while the test hold the briefs in defence of their tespective sides.
The pivotal question giving rise to the trial is common, inasmuch as rival parties are in agreement on the point that all the accused in the dock are State within the meaning of Art. 12 of the constitution which simultaneously entitle and forbid each about certain legal dos and donts.
The dos enable the state to exercise its legal powers whereas the donts likewise forbid the display of (il)legal prowess which, according to each contesting side, the rival party-in-dock wrongly and illegally did, which led to the precipitation of ordeals for the common man whom each side professes to represent.
The concise points advocated by each prosecution side decry one another for denigrating the authority which the Indian Constitution invests in the respective offices each adorn, Union Government for undermining the authority of the Delhi Government; Delhi Police for pooh poohing the tip off which the Delhi Government functionary provided seeking prompt action; Delhi Government for its negligence and failure to invoke the intervention of the Apex Court for legal redressal before overstepping into the streets of Delhi; and Media for its deplorable "cut and paste" role by which an already misconceived issue was presented in a grossly messed up fashion.
The rival sides have begun arguments after initializing written submissions which would further fetch filing of rejoinders by the respective defending sides.