TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court denies custody petition; clarifies personal examination of accused under section 313.</h1> <h3>USHA K. PILLAI Versus RAJ K. SRINIVAS</h3> The Supreme Court rejected a Special Leave Petition in a custody dispute over a minor child, Nivedita, between the grandmother and father. Legal ... - Issues:1. Custody dispute over a minor child.2. Examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Custody Dispute Analysis:The case involved a custody dispute over a minor child, Nivedita, between the appellant (grandmother) and respondent No. 1 (father). The appellant sought guardianship of the child after the father forcibly took her to the U.S.A. The father's actions led to legal proceedings in India and the U.S.A., including a complaint of kidnapping against him and his associates. The High Court directed the child to be produced before it, but the father did not comply. The Supreme Court rejected a Special Leave Petition related to this matter. Additionally, the father's father filed an application to rescind the order appointing the appellant as the child's guardian. The Superior Court in New Jersey permitted the father to retain custody of the child, who was later adopted by the father's new wife and sent to a Christian school.Examination of the Accused Analysis:The main legal issue in this case was the examination of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 313(1) mandates that the court must question the accused before he enters his defense, allowing the accused to explain any incriminating circumstances. The proviso to this section applies to summons cases, allowing the court to dispense with the accused's examination under certain conditions. However, in this case, involving an offense punishable with imprisonment exceeding two years, the accused's personal examination was mandatory. The court clarified that the accused's lawyer cannot substitute for the accused in such examinations. The court cited a previous case where it was held that the accused's personal examination is essential for a fair trial. Therefore, the court set aside the magistrate's order and directed appropriate action regarding the accused's examination under section 313(1)(b) of the Code.
TaxTMI 
