second complaint

Udai Shankar Awasthy v. the State of U.P. [(2013) 2 SCC 435, para 30] 

                 has observed that "the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the Court, or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour.

evidence act 1872

SHAFHI MOHAMMAD  V. THE STATE OF H. P. SLP (CRL.) No.2302/2017

              on the aspect of the requirement of certificate under Sec. 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act 1872,has held that the applicability of procedural requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of Sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act cannot be held to be excluded.  In such case, procedure under the said Sections can certainly be invoked.  If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing cannot possibly secure.  Thus, requirement of certificate under Section 65B(h) is not always mandatory

S/C & S/T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Surendra Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P. 2001 (1) MPLJ 683

                    Doctrine of parity would not be applicable in a case of anticipatory bail, where the provisions of section 18 S/C & S/T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act specifically declares that section 438 Criminal Procedure Code 1973 will not apply to persons committing an offence under this Act. The Apex Court also considered and has held so in the case of State of M.P. and another v. Ram Krishna Balothia and other, 1995 MPLJ 303 and the anticipatory bail order in the situation like this is against the provisions of section 18 of the said Act and the decision of the Apex Court and as such, the said order is per incuriam.

 Mohar Singh and another v. State of M.P. 1995 JLJ 584

            Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act – Bar regarding grant of anticipatory bail – Unless accusation of facts constituted an offence under the Act, bar not applicable –

                     

                   Dule Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1992(II) MPWN 108. The bar of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act shall not apply in the facts of the instant case, because there was, in fact, no accusation of having committed any offence under the Atrocities Act, ingredients of the offence must be stated clearly by the complainant or by eye-witnesses in their statement recorded by the Police so as to attract the provisions of Section 18 of the Atrocities Act.

                   if there was no accusation, therefore offence under the Act could not be constituted. where there is no accusation of any ingredients constituting an offence under the Atrocities Act, the Bar of section 18 will not apply.
see also      Vilas Pandurang Pawar and other. v. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2012 SC 3316

Mirchi alias Rakesh Jain v State of M.P. 2001 (3) MPLJ 356

           Sessions Court have no power to grant bail u/s 439 criminal procedure code 1973. in a case triable by Special Court

Bachu Das v. State of Bihar and others (2014) 3 SCC 471

Section 18 of the sc/st act creates a bar for invoking Section 438 of the Code. However, a duty is cast on the court to verify the averments in the complaint and to find out whether an offence under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act has been prima facie made out. In other words, if there is a specific averment in the complaint, namely, insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate by calling with caste name, the accused persons are not entitled to anticipatory bail.

The scope of Section 18 of the SC/ST Act read with Section 438 of the Code is such that it creates a specific bar in the grant of anticipatory bail. When an offence is registered against a person under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, no court shall entertain an application for anticipatory bail, unless it prima facie finds that such an offence is not made out. Moreover, while considering the application for bail, scope for appreciation of evidence and other material on record is limited. The court is not expected to indulge in critical analysis of the evidence on record. When a provision has been enacted in the Special Act to protect the persons who belong to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and a bar has been imposed in granting bail under Section 438 of the Code, the provision in the Special Act cannot be easily brushed aside by elaborate discussion on the evidence.