👀 When can criminal courts review its own judgment and orders and doctrine of functus officio.

Generally

“the criminal courts, as envisaged under the CrPC, are barred from altering or review their own judgments except for the exceptions which are explicitly provided by the statute, namely, correction of a clerical or an arithmetical error that might have been committed or the said power is provided under any other law for the time being in force. As the courts become functus officio the very moment a judgment or an order is signed, the bar of Section 362 CrPC becomes applicable, this, despite the powers provided under Section 482 CrPC which, this veil cannot allow the courts to step beyond or circumvent an explicit bar”

Exceptionally

Court culled out the following exceptional circumstances wherein a criminal court is empowered to alter or review its own judgment or a final order under Section 362 CrPC:

"a. Such power is expressly conferred upon court by CrPC or any other law for the time being in force or;

b. The court passing such a judgement or order lacked inherent jurisdiction to do so or;

c. A fraud or collusion is being played on court to obtain such judgment or order or;

d. A mistake on the part of court caused prejudice to a party or;

e. Fact relating to non-serving of necessary party or death leading to estate being non-represented, not brought to notice of court while passing such judgment or order."

Vikram Bakshi v. R.P. Khosla 2025

528 BNSS and 403 BNSS
482 CrPC and 362 CrPC.

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

Delhi High Court Upholds Vires Of S.193(9) BNSS On Further Probe, Says It Does Not 'Camouflage' Accused's Right To Default Bail
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-section-1939-bnss-right-to-default-bail-302154

Upholded the Constitutional validity of 193(9) of BNSS

Ratio Decidendi
1. So far as the submission that provision of ‘further investigation’ as contained in Section 193(9) is camouflage to defeat the right of the accused person to seek ‘default bail’ under Section 187(3) of BNSS 2023, we may only observe that the provision contained in Section 193(9) and those of Section 187(3), operate in different fields and further that Section 193(9) does not in any manner acts as a camouflage to such right.

2. If a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of process of law, it is for the legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. (Padma Sundara Rao vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2002)

3. Thus, what we find is that the power to conduct further investigation as conferred on the investigating agencies under Section 193(9) is not unfettered; the proviso appended thereto contains adequate safeguards on the arbitrary use of the power for further investigation, for the reason that further investigation during trial can be conducted only with the permission of the Court

YASH MISHRA v. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI 2025 (Del HC)

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) excludes hearsay evidence from being relevant, except in specific situations expressly provided under the Act, such as dying declarations, statements by persons who are dead or cannot be found, entries in books of account kept in the ordinary course of business

Reasoning: Section 54 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam mandates that oral evidence in all cases must be direct

a) Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A.

(b) Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A.

(c) A is true, but R is false.

(d) A is false, but R is true

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Tinku who is an Advocate of Babli knows the fact that Babli has absconded.

(i) Can court compel Tinku to give evidence of fact as to the location of Babli's residence.
(ii) Can investigating officer summon Tinku to give evidence of fact as to the location of Babli's residence.

Excellent arguments

https://www.youtube.com/live/_Bo05lJfCv4?feature=shared

Rajasthan becomes first Indian state to issue detailed stray dog management guidelines after SC directive
https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Aug/27/rajasthan-becomes-first-indian-state-to-issue-detailed-stray-dog-management-guidelines-after-sc-directive

High Court Rules under Article 225 vis-à-vis RTI Act: A flawed approach?
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/high-court-rules-under-article-225-vis-vis-rti-act-a-flawed-approach

Brief changes and judgments Nishith desai BNSS

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://nishithdesai.com/generateHTML/14897/4&ved=2ahUKEwi-8ey7u62PAxXa4TgGHXmWAJ0QFnoECCQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0juR6yjAhz-Ge69niiLpBr

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

Amit Shah accuses Opposition VP candidate of aiding Naxalism: What was the Salwa Judum Case? 🔗
#express_explained #express_premium #naxalism #salwa_judum

Justice Reddy, a retired judge of the Supreme Court, headed the Bench that in 2011 delivered the landmark ruling in

Nandini Sundar v State of Chhattisgarh

, which ended Salwa Judum, the practice of using tribal youth as Special Police Officers (SPOs) to counter the Maoist insurgency in Chhattisgarh.

@CurrentLegalGK

#Quote@CurrentLegalGK

“A good compromise is when both parties are dissatisfied"

~Larry David

Negotiation, mediation.

📃📄You want a certified copy of a case documents in which you are NOT a party?

You have 2 options either to use RTI Act or use High court Rules made under Article 225 of constitution of India.

The court in the following titled judgment held that a third party can in adminstrative matters RTI can be used but on Judicial side HC rules will prevail because HC held personal information as trustee and only HC rules can be used and not RTI.

The fair issue was that Gujarat HC rules prescribed a procedure that while seeking information as third party you need to file an affidavit stating reasons and Section 6 (1) of The RTI Act 2005 clearly provides no need to state reason while seeking information.

CIC v. High Court of Gujarat 2020

👇⏬Share what is the procedure in your HIGH COURT to seek certified copies of a stranger case documents of a case.

@CurrentLegalGK

Hindu Marriage Invalid If Requisite Ceremonies Not Performed, Registration Won't Make Such A Marriage Legitimate : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/hindu-marriage-invalid-if-requisite-ceremonies-not-performed-registration-wont-make-such-a-marriage-legitimate-supreme-court-256594

Executing Court Empowered To Grant Statutory Interest Not Mentioned In Award U/S 36 Of Arbitration Act: Allahabad High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-rules-executing-court-can-grant-statutory-interest-section-36-arbitration-act-302210

#Arbitration@CurrentLegalGK

[S.91 CrPC] Accused Cannot Be Summoned To Produce Incriminating Evidence Against Himself: Calcutta High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/calcutta-high-court/s91-crpc-accused-cannot-be-summoned-to-produce-incriminating-evidence-against-himself-calcutta-high-court-302297

Minor Girl's Claim Of Being 18+ Or Aadhar Showing Her As Major Doesn't Help Case Of Accused Booked Under POCSO Act: HP High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/himachal-pradesh-high-court/himachal-pradesh-high-court-minor-girl-claim-18-age-aadhar-major-accused-pocso-act-bail-denied-302305

Reg. V. Prince., [LR] 2 CCR 154, where it was held that a girl's false statement of being older does not absolve the accused if she is, in fact, under the statutory age.

" This judgment has become a locus classicus and is cited in all the law books on the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the fact that the victim represented herself age more than 18 years old will not help the petitioner", the Court said.

#POCSO@CurrentLegalGK

Pertains To Violation Of Fundamental Rights Under Article 21: Rajasthan High Court Stays Installation Of Dairy Booth Outside Private Residence
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/rajasthan-high-court/rajasthan-high-court-rules-diary-booth-outside-houses-violates-right-to-life-section-152-bns-302291