Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

TAMIL NADU NATIONAL LAW SCHOOL

TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

INTERNSHIP DIARY

Student Name:A.K.S.Vishnu Reg. No: BC0140077

Date: 28th August 2017.

Year of study: III B.A.,LL.B (Hons.)

Internship type: District Court Internship

Organizations Name: J.K.J ASSOCIATES

Tel.: e-mail:

Contact person in organization: J.K. JAYASHEELAN

Tel. 9894292179

Period of Internship: 30 DAYS

Internship Approved/Internship NOT Approved

Internal supervisors signature: Date:

External supervisor certificate submitted Internship

Diary submitted
1st June 2017

I went to the Tiruchirapalli District Court on the very first day of my internship and was
given introduction to the different types of civil and criminal cases. I witnessed pleadings of a
case related to a partner being ousted from a partnership case which had been transferred
from the court of the Additional Civil judge in which there was an order given and was also
asked to call the senior lawyers in case their case was to be heard on the same day.

After spotting the procedure at the court, I went back with the senior to the office. We were
allowed to be free until 6 pm, after which the senior returned. He enquired about the things I
have learnt on the first day. After this brief interaction with the senior I was asked to retire for
the day.

2nd June 2017

Session Case No. 979/ 11- Karthikeyan

The advocates marked the evidence as exhibits A1 to A22

Facts: The deceased was let out of a room to X in his house. On 23/3/16 the accused no.1
misbehaved with X then the deceased reproved the accused no.1 due to which he developed
grudge and hatred against the deceased. On the same day the accused no.1 along with 4 other
associates of him beat the deceased around 8:30pm, on seeing this incident one of the
witnesses (Parvathi) has chastised the accused. The accused returned again at 09:30pm and
beat him again using sticks. Later the deceased was admitted in the hospital by his mistress,
she hid the fact that he was beaten up by few people and falsely informed the doctor that he
slipped down the stairs. After a while, the deceased was shifted to another hospital where he
died. Only after this, the mistress (Lakshmi) reported the incident to the police and the police
registered a case under s.302 of IPC read with S.34 of IPC.

Judgment: Awaiting

Decision: It is found that the accused 1 to 5 are not guilty of murder and are acquitted under
S.235 (1) CRPC because the prosecution has failed to establish any guilt against the accused
for the offence punishable S.302 read with S.34 IPC. As the main prosecution witnesses have
turned hostile and the defacto complainant was not examined by the prosecution. Though the
facts say that the deceased was beaten up with connection with P.W X, to whom the
deceased let out the house, stated that she never resided in the deceased house and she
doesnt know who the accused no.1 is and the other 4 accused. So the very base of
prosecution was cut.

3rd June 2017

Session Case No. Os, 1094/08- Alagesan

The matter was scheduled for hearing before The Honble Debts Recovery Tribunal

S.A.No.330 of 2016

The case was between Alagesan vs. State bank of India, it was a securitisation Application
(Under section 17 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of financial assets and
enforcement of security Interests act, 2002)

Facts:

The 1st applicants business M/s. Empire Photovoltaic Systems Private limited, a company
set up on 30-09-2010, was a business of manufacturing solar pv Modules and other electrical
equipment. The 1stApplicant who was a share Holder and the director of The Company sold
his shares to and his wife and signed a Share Purchase Agreement and thereafter resigned
from the Board of directors, which was accepted by the company with immediate effect. A
reading of clause 4(1)(b) of the share Purchaser Agreement indicates that Alagesan has
agreed to provide necessary collateral security to replace with those submitted by the 1st
Applicant and other shareholders in their personal capacities .Further, the above said persons
have also agreed to replace the personal guarantees of the applicants and sellers of the shares
with the personal guarantees as per the bank norms. The 1ST applicants received a cheque by
the Alagesan which when bounced hey lodged a criminal complaint. After the change of the
directors the directors paid back some of the loan to the bank which the bank accepted by
which they have recognised the new shareholders and directors, the bank issued a possession
notice to the applicants for the repayment of the remaining loan.

Grounds:

The banks action is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.


The bank accepted the repayment by the new management so accepting the new
management and the applicants also submit that there was an alteration in the contract
under sec 62 of contracts act in view of the new payments done by the new
management. So the bank taking possession of the property was illegal.
4th June 2017

Was given an assignment regarding the case held on 3rd June.

5th June 2017

It was a suit filed for money recovery.

The plaintiff co. manufactured and supplied goods based on the order of the defendant on a
regular basis. For a certain period of time the defendant paid the amounts, there after
committed default in paying the consideration. It is an amount more than 75 lakhs so a suit
was filed directly in the district court.

In the suit the plaintiff claimed the consideration that he had to get along with 24 % p.a
interest. The learned counsel for the plaintiff proved the supply and delivery of goods through
the evidence filed the ledger documents, the delivery receipt along with the consignment.

The learned co-counsel for the defendants couldnt prove the payment for the supply of the
goods, so the suit decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

6th June 2017

I was given a case to study which was scheduled to proceed on 19-6-17.

CRL.PETN.NO:4422/2017

Mr.P.V.G.Srinivasa Rao, Manager of M/s. Reliance super Market &Reliance Fresh,Ltd. vs.
State, Represented by Food Safety Officer, Warangal

Facts: The respondent visited the store on 2-08-2013,in Hanumakonda, Warangal. After
disclosing his identity the officer collected samples of prepared food items which included
veg biryani which was collected and taken to testing. The food was divided into 4 parts and
sent to different offices for testing, was declared to be unsafe as there was of synthetic colour.

Grounds:

Company has not been arrayed as an accused in the complaint; it was registered under
the licensee who is stationed in Hyderabad.
The complaint is not maintainable under section 77 of food safety act, as it has
crossed the limitation.
SECTION 66 of the food safety act, mandates arraying of the company as accused.
There is no standard prescribed for the item.
There are no averments in the Complaint as to the role of the petitioner in committing
the alleged offence.

7th June 2017

The prosecution case was, the accused were charged u/section 302, 120(b) and 324 r/w 34
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Where the accused and other accused went into deceased farm and
picked up a quarrel regarding their past land issues and in that quarrel while all the other
family members were present at the scene of offence. The A1 lifted gooru koyya (an
agricultural instrument with sharp edge) and hit the deceased on forehead and the deceased
fell down. Deceased died while he was taking to the hospital.
The case was done with the examination of witnesses and adjourned for the pleadings.
Cr.M.P. 122/2012 in Cr. No. 121/2012
Where the accused charged with sec 147, 148, 302 r/w 511, 115, 118, 120(b) r/w 149 Indian
Penal Code, 1860 and 25(1B)(a)(b) of Arms Act. The petition was filed under section 438
Cr.P.C for bail. In this case the petitioner who was a son of present M.L.A of rapthadu
constituency, Anantapaum, Andhra Pradesh and also his father late. Sri. Paritala Ravindra
was also a M.L.A who was murdered.
The counsel argued that the petitioner was in indirect politics and was humiliating and
subjected to the torture in the hands of respondent. Hence they framed false charges where he
has no connection to the offence.
The bail was granted and directed the respondent to release the petitioner.

8th June 2017

Case session number: OS 96/17 2nd ADJ

This is a suit is filed by plaintiff for share in the ancestral property. It is said that the father of
the plaintiff got an extent of 6 acres in s. No. 447-2 under the partition deed.
It is said that since the date of partition the father and other family members of the plaintiff
were in joint possession and enjoyment of the property excising all incidents of ownership. It
is said that the name of the father of plaintiff is also a mutated in all the revenue records
concerned. The father of plaintiff died about 20 years back and the mother of the plaintiff, the
plaintiff, 4th defendant succeeded to his estate. The mother of the plaintiff also died about 10
years back and since then the plaintiff 4th defendant and Dasari narayana continued to be
joint possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule mention property.
Dasari narayana, the elder brother of plaintiff died leaving behind D1 to D3 to succeed to his
estate. It is said that as the plaintiff is not residing locally, taking the advantage of the same
D1 in collusion with D4 got mutated their names in all revenue records and obtained pattadar
pass books and title deeds to the entire extent, as disputes arose in between plaintiff and
defendant since 2 months with regard to the joint possession and enjoyment of plaint
scheduled mentioned property.
The plaintiff filed the above suit for 1/3rd share in the plaint scheduled mentioned property.
The case is adjourned for the judgement.

9th June 2017

Session Case no. OS 1258/15- Pattammal

In this case the accused was charged with section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
accused was a driver who was attacked by both the deceased. The accused slit the throat of
the 1st deceased and stabbed the 2nd deceased where they died on the spot. The counsel
examined PW1 and PW2, tried to establish that they are not the eye witness to the incident
and also tried to establish that there is no motive to kill those persons.

10th June 2017

OS. 920/16-Perumal

The examination of the witness no.PW3 was done and the counsel tried to establish the same
as what he wants to establish from the previous witness. The case was adjourned.
OS.615/15 Balasubramaniam

This case was for the delivery of the judgment and all the accused were acquitted on the
ground that there is no nexus between motive and the scene of offence and also that there is
no consistency in the statements of witnesses
11th June 2017

Assignment 1

I was assigned to research about Plea Bargaining in India.

In order to enable the reduction in the delay of disposing criminal cases, the 154th Report of
the Law Commission first recommended the introduction of plea bargaining as an
alternative method to deal with huge arrears of criminal cases. This recommendation of the
Law Committee finally found a support in Malimath Committee Report. The NDA
government had formed a committee, headed by the former Chief Justice of the Karnataka
and Kerala High Courts, Justice V.S.Malimath to come up with some suggestions to tackle
the ever-growing number of criminal cases. In its report, the Malimath Committee
recommended that a system of plea bargaining be introduced in the Indian Criminal Justice
System to facilitate the earlier disposal of criminal cases and to reduce the burden of the
courts.

The statement of objects and reasons, inter alia, mentions that, The disposal of criminal trials
in the courts takes considerable time and that in many cases trial do not commence for as
long as 3 to 5 years after the accused was remitted to judicial custody. Though not recognized
by the criminal jurisprudence, it is seen as an alternative method to deal with the huge arrears
of criminal cases. The bill attracted enormous public debate. Critics said it is not recognized
and against public policy under our criminal justice system. More recently in State of Uttar
Pradesh V. Chandrika1 The Apex Court held that It is settled law that on the basis of plea
bargaining court cannot dispose of the criminal cases. The court has to decide it on merits. If
the accused confesses its guilt, appropriate sentence is required to be implemented. The court
further held in the same case that, Mere acceptance or admission of the guilt should not be a
ground for reduction of sentence. Nor can the accused bargain with the court that as he is
pleading guilty the sentence be reduced. Despite this huge hue and cry, the government found
it acceptable and finally section 265-A TO 265-L have added in the Code of Criminal
Procedure so as to provide for raising the plea bargaining in certain types of criminal cases.

1
2000 Cr.L.J. 384(386),
While commenting on this aspect, the division bench of the Gujarat High Court observed
in State of Gujarat V. Natwar Harchanji Thakor2 that, The very object of law is to
provide easy, cheap and expeditious justice by resolution of disputes, including the trial of
criminal cases and considering the present realistic profile of the pendency and delay in
disposal in the administration of law and justice, fundamental reforms are inevitable. There
should not be anything static. It can thus be said that it is really a measure and redressal and it
shall add a new dimension in the realm of judicial reforms.
Some of the major drawbacks of the concept of plea bargaining as is recognized in India are :

Involving the police in plea bargaining process would invite coercion.


By involving the court in plea bargaining process, the courts impartiality is
impugned.
Involving the victim in plea bargaining process would invite corruption.
If the plead guilty application of the accused in rejected then the accused would face
Problem to prove himself innocent

Therefore to ensure fair justice, plea bargaining must encompass the following minimum
requirements:

The hearing must take place in court


The court must satisfy itself that the accused is pleading guilty knowingly and
voluntarily.
Any court order rejecting a plea bargaining application must be kept confidential to
prevent prejudice to the accused.

Plea bargaining is undoubtedly, a disputed concept. Few people have welcomed it while
others have abandoned it. It is true that plea bargaining speeds up caseload disposition, but it
does that in an unconstitutional manner. But perhaps we have no other choice but to adopt
this technique. The criminal courts are too overburdened to allow each and every case to go
on trial. Only time will tell if the introduction of this new concept is justified or not.

2
(2005) Cr. L.J. 2957
12th June 2017

Session court- 131/16

In the court of special sessions additional judge, Kadapa, Andhra Pradesh. In this case the
accused were charged u/s 302, 320,120(B), 148, 268 Indian Penal Code, 1860. There was one
deceased and 2 grievously injured. On the day of offence the A1 was going on motor bike
very fast by seeing this the deceased stopped and warned the A1. A1 left there and few hours
at around 7:00 PM A1 along with A2 to A6 came near the house of the deceased with wepons
and picked up a quarrel when this was happening, PW1 to PW4 came to the scene and tried
to stop the quarrel. In mean time A2 lifted a pidi baaku(a sharp edged weapon) and stabbed
the deceased and there was a fight among others in which PW1 and PW2 got injured and
soon after all the accused escaped. The villagers called ambulance and tried the deceased to
shift to hospital, in the middle he died. After this incident there was huge public disturbance
in that area because all the accused belong to one community and the deceased and injured
belongs to other community. Where by the police has to lathi charge the mob to control law
and order there.
The counsel examined PW1 only on this day. Adjourned for the next day.

13th June 2017

OS 36/12

This is a suit filed for damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff restricted his claim to Rs.50
lakhs. The suit is pending before the Honble 1st additional district judge. The brief
averments of the plaint or that the plaintiff is a reputed political leader and contestant as MLA
for the rapthadu constituency, Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff further avered that the defendant
no.2 published a news item in its district edition on 28/2/2011. Under a caption which can be
a loss to the plaintiff and her family. It is said that the defendant no. 1 gave the statement and
2nd defendant published the same. The plaintiff states that due to publication of aforesaid
news item this name and reputation are damaged and in particular among the friends,
relatives and people of the particular constituency. The plaintiff has also issued a legal notice
prior to this institution of the suit. Both the defendants filed their statements denying the
altercations made in the plaint and either party of the suit have examined their own witnesses
and the suit is pending for the pleadings. Both the counsels have been asking time for the
pleadings.
The court adjourned the matter for the further date mentioning this is the last time to ask for
the adjournment and asked both the counsel to be ready with their pleadings for the next
adjournment.
On the same day, there was a dispute resolution settlement in a matrimonial case, in which
both the parties have agreed and signed upon a terms of compromise agreement. It is
mentioned that the dispute is resolved and both the parties should respect each other mutually
and also the parents of the both parties. In case of further disputes the parties should try to
solve amicably with the middleman.

14th June 2017

CRL.PETN.NO:4422/2017

The judge heard the pleadings of the respondents who claim to have done the act in authority
and that the petitioner is liable under the act, after which the judge gave a hearing date for
next month.

15th June 2017

Today witnessed court pleadings of the senior counsel I interned under. The matter in
question which solicited a lot of debate and discussion was the concept of others claiming
new rights to suit schedule property with the judgement debtor. With respect to this there was
lot of argumentation, also opposing counsel gave replies. The idea that came out of these
debates and discussions was that claim to any illegal rights exercised over property other than
what has been declared in favour of the judgement debtor must come independently of what
is allowed to the judgement debtor. Also, Order 21 Rule 97 and the principle of frivolous suit
based on the importance of the document was discussed and questioned.

16th June 2017

This was the case of 498-A and 302. The examination of PW1 and PW2 was already done.
PW3 is a child witness and the counsel tried to establish that the witness is as per the
instructions of PW1 and Pw2 who were his grandparents. The case is further adjourned.

19th June 2017

I was asked to witness pleadings relating to jurisdiction of a suit relating to immovable


property. The pleadings made by one counsel were that suits for immovable property were
not hit by Sec.20 and so Sec.21 must be used. Sec.21 provides for two conditions under
which jurisdiction can be taken, one is at the earliest time and the other is in consequence of
justice and the counsel uses the second condition to prove jurisdiction. The judge of the
Principle Civil Court instead shows that Sec.9 which overrides Sec.21 says that the court can
take up all cases for hearing which are civil in nature. Also my learning from this is that the
other general rule that a bonafide transferee must not be made to run from court to court
under the garb of appropriate jurisdiction was disregarded.

20th June 2017

Assignment-3

Analysis of Anticipatory Bail in India

Section 438 is a procedural provision which is concerned with personal liberty of an


individual, entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence since he is not, on the date
of his application for anticipatory bail, convicted of the offence in respect of which he seeks
bail. Although the power to release on anticipatory bail can be described as of an
extraordinary character this would not justify the conclusion that the power must be
exercised in exceptional cases only. It is not necessary that the accused must make out a
special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail. Each case has to be
considered on its own merits and in its facts and circumstances. Personal liberty being a very
precious fundamental right should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In case, the State considers the following
suggestions in proper perspective then perhaps it may not be necessary to curtail the personal
liberty of the accused in a routine manner:

Direct the accused to join investigation and only when the accused does not cooperate
with the investigating agency, then only the accused be arrested.
Seize either the passport or such other related documents, such as, the title deeds of
properties or the Fixed Deposit Receipts/Share Certificates of the accused.
Direct the accused to execute bonds;
The accused may be directed to furnish sureties of number of persons which
according to the prosecution are necessary in view of the facts of the particular case.
The accused be directed to furnish undertaking that he would not visit the place where
the witnesses reside so that the possibility of tampering of evidence or otherwise
influencing the course of justice can be avoided.
Bank accounts to be frozen for small duration during investigation.

Anticipatory bail is a device to secure the individuals liberty; it is neither a passport to the
commission of crimes nor a shield against any and all kinds of accusation, likely or unlikely.

21st June 2017

A suit filed for damages to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff restricted his claim to Rs.50 lakhs. The suit is pending before the Honble 1st
additional district judge. The brief averments of the plaint or that the plaintiff is a reputed
political leader and contestant as MLA for the malkajgiri constituency, Telangana. The
plaintiff further averred that the defendant no.2 published a news item in its district edition on
3/6/11. Under a caption which can be loss to the plaintiff and her family. It is said that the
defendant no. 1 gave the statement and 2nd defendant published the same. The plaintiff states
that due to publication of aforesaid news item this name and reputation are damaged and in
particular among the friends, relatives and people of the particular constituency. The plaintiff
has also issued a legal notice prior to this institution of the suit. Both the defendants filed
their statements denying the altercations made in the plaint and either party of the suit have
examined their own witnesses and the suit is pending for the pleadings. Both the counsels
have been asking time for the pleadings.

The court adjourned the matter for the another date mentioning this was the last time to ask
for the adjournment and asked both the counsel to be ready with their pleadings for the next
adjournment.

22nd June 2017

A case related to POCSO act. The examination of PW2 was to be done which is the case of
POCSO Act. The chief examination was finished by the Public Prosecutor and he also asked
the adjournment to be postponed for the next day.

23rd June 2017

It was a suit filed for money recovery.

The plaintiff co. manufactured and supplied goods based on the order of the defendant on a
regular basis. For a certain period of time the defendant paid the amounts, there after
committed default in paying the consideration. It is an amount more than 75 lakhs so a suit
was filed directly in the district court.
In the suit the plaintiff claimed the consideration that he had to get along with 24 % p.a
interest. The learned counsel for the plaintiff proved the supply and delivery of goods through
the evidence filed the ledger documents, the delivery receipt along with the consignment.

The learned co-counsel for the defendants couldnt prove the payment for the supply of the
goods, so the suit decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

24th June 2017

The case was adjourned to this date for the examination of PW5 to PW16. In which few of
the witnesses turned hostile. And the court adjourned the matter for next date for the
examination of PW 7and 8 who were absent on this particular date. The case is adjourned for
further date.

25th June 2017

An agreement for the felicitation of investment was to be prepared. The client wanted to enter
in to an agreement with an agent who was assigned the task of getting investors who would
invest in the company. I drafted the contract which was reviewed and I was asked to take off
for the day.

26th June 2017

The advocate was pleading but was not advancing his argument. In the above mentioned case
the deceased girl died in suspicious circumstances, her father who was the defacto
complainant filed a complaint to investigate the case. The F.I.R was registered under S.174 of
CRPC, after receiving the complaint the police started the investigating the case. On
investigating it was found that the husband of the deceased suspected the character of the
deceased through which disputes arose between them and ended up killing her.

The police then converted the case from S.174 CRPC to S.302 IPC. The magistrate court
convicted the accused. Dissatisfied of the judgment, the accused appealed further in the
district court. The accused applied for a bail as he was inside jail.

S. 167 CRPC the police must complete investigation within 60 days in respect of the offences
which are punishable for less than 10years. The police should complete the investigation
within 90days and file a charge sheet where the investigation relates to an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life or for a term not less than 10 years otherwise the accused
is entitled for bail as a matter of right. In the present case the investigation crossed more than
90 days, so the bail was given.

27th June 2017

A suit was filed for specific performance. In this, the sale agreement mentioned that he has
paid so and so amount and will pay the rest of the money within 6 months but he failed to do
so.

The defendant filed a notice on 22/1/13 for the rest of the amount but the said notice was
refused by the plaintiff. Another notice was on 4/11/13 but this was also refused by the
plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit and gave a notice to defendant just before filing the present
suit claiming the plaintiff was always ready to pay the rest of the amount. There was a
negligence of the plaintiff of registering the sale deed for which the defendant suffered
financially and after 3 years filed another notice just to drag on the proceedings. The
defendant claims the plaintiff is not entitled for specific relief. The defendant claims that at
the fault of the plaintiff, the case was dragged on till now, so he will give refund without
adding the interest.

28th June 2017

Chief Examination

Our office received summons of witness of the court, so, I was deputed to give evidence in
this case. The license by the driver was taken on 19-07-2014 and prior to this date he had no
license. The license which he took was valid up to 20-07-2034. There was no driving license
for the driver on the date of the accident that is 03-02-2013.

Cross Examination

The summons were issued to produce Shanmugam . But the license bared the name Khalil
Pasha Sheik. It is true that if there is any difference even in single letter of the name, it is not
possible to gather information about that particular number from the online source. Any
person can seek the driving license from any other RTO showing his residential address.

Time was requested by the counsel for further evidence.


29th June 2017

O.S No. 2/14

It was argued by the counsel of the petitioner that the petition filed by the petitioners to
examine the commissioner as their witness should be dismissed because the commissioner is
not the witness of either parties rather is the witness of the court. The judge said it is an
immature petition because it was filed to examine the court witness, the judge also added that
the commissioner may be examined in person, a report and evidence taken by him shall be
the evidence in the suit and form the part of the report. The court or with the permission of
the court the parties may examine the commissioner. It the court thinks it is necessary to
examine the commissioner then the parties can cross examine only and cannot chief examine.

30th June 2017

A dispute resolution settlement in a matrimonial case was considered in the court today, in
which both the parties agreed and signed upon a terms of compromise agreement. It is
mentioned that the dispute is resolved and both the parties should respect each other mutually
and also the parents of the both parties. In case of further disputes the parties should try to
solve amicably with the middleman.