Judicial Vision August 2021

August 2021 Judicial Vision Issue # 8
HIGH COURT
PoCSO Act-Sec. 5 (f)
CRIMINAL LAW
Alex P.V. v. State of Kerala -Crl. A. no. 416/2021 dated 13.07.2021
1. Can the evidence of a victim in a sexual offence be discarded on the ground that she had not spoken about
repeated sexual assaults or that there are embellishments in her version?
2. Would penetrative sexual assault committed by a Sunday school teacher become punishable under Sec. 5 (f) of
PoCSO Act?
3. Can the extract of admission register of a school, which is not the school first attended by the victim, be accepted
as proof of age of the victim?
The link to read the judgment:Alex P.V. v. State of Kerala
Suo motu v. State of Kerala - WP(C) no. 11316/2021 dated 06.08.2021
General- Extension of interim orders
during lockdown
Important- Unreported
in major law journals
Order for extension of interim orders & stays granted by the Hon’ble High Court till 27.08.2021. Suo motu writ petition
is disposed, granting liberty to the petitioners to file extension of application of interim orders from 31.08.2021.
The link to read the order: Suo motu v. State of Kerala - WP(C) no. 11316/2021 dated 06.08.2021
At a glance…
Sl
No
Court Parties Journal Provision of
law
Dictum
1. Supreme
Court
Sayyed Ayaz Ali v.
Prakash G. Goyal
CA No 2401-
2402 of 2021
CPC- Sec.
2(2), Sec. 96,
O. 7. R. 11(b),
(c) & (d)
The definition of “decree” in Section 2(2) “shall be
deemed to include the rejection of a plaint”. Hence, the
order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint is subject to
a first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. The writ
petition filed by the appellant was liable to be rejected
on that ground. (Para 12)
Order 7 Rule 11 proviso deals with a situation where
time has been fixed by the Court for the correction of
the valuation or for supplying of the requisite stamp
paper. Under the proviso, the time so fixed shall not be
extended unless the court, for reasons to be recorded,
is satisfied that the plaintiff was prevented by a cause of
an exceptional nature from complying within the time
fixed by the court and that a refusal to extend time
would cause grave injustice to the plaintiff. The proviso
evidently covers the cases falling within the ambit of
clauses (b) and (c) and has no application to a rejection
of a plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d). (Para 13)
2 Supreme
Court
Ajaykumar alias
Bittu v. State of
Uttarakhand
(2021) 4 SCC
301
CrPC-Sec. 319 The principles for exercise of power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. by Criminal Court are well settled. The
Constitution Bench of this Court in Hardeep Singh
versus State of Punjab and others, (2014) 3 SCC 92, has
elaborately considered all contours of Section 319
Cr.P.C. This Court has held that Power under Section 319
Cr.P.C. is a discretionary and extra-ordinary power
which has to be exercised sparingly. This Court further
held that the test that has to be applied is one which is
more than prima facie case as exercised at the time of
framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent
Page | 4 | 4
Go to: In this Issue