•   Criminal Trial - High court has observed that when the accused-appellants started assaulting the forest officers, none of the officers, who were unarmed, dared to go near the culprits with a view to catch them, thus, placing the accused  in a dominating position - On the other hand, it has further observed that the accused-appellants had dropped the said wooden log to make their bullock cart light in weight with a view to move swiftly -  This Court finds the aforesaid reasons assigned by the High Court to be incorrect - Once the accused-appellants were in a dominating position, none of the forest officers could go near them for the purpose of nabbing them. Thus, there can be no justification for leaving behind the said wooden log - They could have easily carried it away with them, if they had the intention of doing so - The prosecution has failed to explain the reason behind the accused  not taking away the said wooden log with them. (2016)3 SCEJ 202
  • 20.  Criminal Trial - In case of failure in prosecution, the Investigating Officer/agency should also be held responsible - If ultimately the prosecution fails, the persons assigned investigation and prosecution may be liable for action. (175) PLR
  • Criminal Trial - Lack of firearm by patrolling team - All forest officers were deployed on patrolling duty to keep a check on the then increasing forest offences -  Incident, like in the instant case, could reasonably be anticipated -  Under such circumstances, they should have been armed with weapons atleast for their own safety -  As per record, when the incident occurred all the forest officers were found to be without weapons -  Cannot be believed that the forest officers on patrolling duty were without any weapon - High Court has erred in observing that the Forest Department being poorly equipped failed to provide weapons to meet the situations, like in the instant case. (2016)3 SCEJ 202
  • Criminal Trial - Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999, Section 3  - The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that Section 3 of the MCOCA could not be invoked only on the basis of the previous charge sheets for Section 3 would come into play only if the respondents were proved to have committed an offence for gain or any pecuniary benefit or undue economic or other advantage after the promulgation of MCOCA - Offences which the respondents are alleged to have committed after the promulgation of MCOCA were not proved against them -  Commission of offences prior to the enactment of MCOCA does not by itself constitute an offence under MCOCA . Held, Registration of cases, filing of charge sheets and taking of cognizance by the competent court in relation to the offence alleged to have been committed by the respondents in the past is but one of the requirements for invocation of Section 3 of the MCOCA. Continuation of unlawful activities is the second and equally important requirement that ought to be satisfied. It is only if an organised crime is committed by the accused after the promulgation of MCOCA that he may, seen in the light of the previous charge sheets and the cognizance taken by the competent court, be said to have committed an offence under Section 3 of the Act. (2016)3 SCEJ 960
  •    Criminal trial - PW the first informant stated that he witnessed the incident while he was standing in the first floor gallery of his building which was abutting the Pandal where the incident took place -  He also deposed that he had identified A1 and A12 in the Test Identification Parades  - But it is not clear whether he could have witnessed the incident from the first floor as the setting up of the Pandal was completed and the work of putting tarpaulin over the Pandal was done and only the decoration of the frill was going on -  It is doubtful whether PW could have witnessed the incident in the state of commotion when everyone was running for shelter due to firing. (2016)3 SCEJ 351
  •   Criminal Trial - Stand of the C.B.I. coupled with the absence of any material with the petitioner or detailed facts being set out in the petition, there was hardly any occasion for directing investigation by the C.B.I. of that matter - Merely because the original petitioner was unhappy with the department, could not be a ground to take cognizance of his petition and put the burden on the other officers to face C.B.I. enquiry. (173) PLR