quid pro quo

Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase used in English to mean an exchange of goods or services, in which one transfer is contingent upon the other; "a favour for a favour". Phrases with similar meanings include: "give and take", "tit for tat", and "you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" and "one hand washes the other". 

TIPS FOR JUNIORS ............( APPOINTED AS ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER )

TIPS FOR JUNIORS ............

( APPOINTED AS ADVOCATE COMMISSIONER )

ഒരുപാട്  ജൂനിയേഴ്സിനെ കമ്മീഷ്ണൻമാരായി മൊഴി എടുക്കാൻ നിയമിക്കുന്നുണ്ട്. അവർക്ക് എങ്ങനെ അത് എങ്ങനെ proper ആയി Execute ചെയ്യണമെന്ന് അറിയില്ല. (കുറ്റം പറയാൻ പറ്റില്ല, അവർ പഠിച്ച് വരുന്നതേയുള്ളൂ) എനിക്ക് അറിയാവുന്നത് പറയാം, തെറ്റാണ് എന്ന് തോന്നിയാൽ പുസ്തകം നോക്കി തിരുത്തുക !

👉🏿 കമ്മിഷൻ ജോലി ഏറ്റെടുത്തു കഴിഞ്ഞാൽ CPC യിലെ order.26 മുഴുവനായി വായിക്കുക!

👉🏿 Civil Rules of Practice ലെ Rule 150 മുതൽ 168 വരെയെങ്കിലും തീർച്ചയായും വായിക്കുക

👉🏿 ചീഫ് വിസ്താരം എഴുതാൻ കമ്മീഷ്ണർക്ക് അധികാരം ഇല്ല (Salem Bar Association decision by SC, 2000) & or. 18 Rule 4)

👉🏿 മൊഴിയുടെ Copy കൊടുക്കണമോ? ഒരു സാക്ഷിയുടെ മൊഴി Complete ആയാൽ തീർച്ചയായും പകർപ്പ് കൊടുക്കണം.  "Shall give" എന്നാണ് ഉപയോഗിച്ചിരിക്കുന്ന വാക്ക് ( Rule 167 CRP)

👉🏿 Cross വിസ്താരത്തിന് മുമ്പ് Documents ഓരോന്നായി എടുത്ത് ചോദിച്ച് മാർക്ക് ചെയ്യുക. (അല്ലാതെ Exb A1 to A7 marked എന്ന് എഴുതരുത് ) കാരണം എങ്കിൽ മാത്രമേ എതിർ ഭാഗത്തിന് Objection രേഖ പ്പെടുത്താൻ കഴിയൂ !

👉🏿 ഏത് അക്കം കൊടുത്ത് മാർക്ക് ചെയ്യണം? വാദിഭാഗം A എന്നും, പ്രതി ഭാഗം B എന്നും, കോടതി docs C എന്നും, Summons അയച്ചു വരുന്ന സാക്ഷി കൊണ്ടുവരുന്നവ X എന്നും മാർക്ക് ചെയ്യണം.

👉🏿 വിസ്താരം തുടങ്ങും മുമ്പേ സത്യവാചകം ചൊല്ലിക്കൊടുക്കണം! എന്താണ് ആ സത്യവാചകം? "ഈശ്വരൻ സാക്ഷിയായി കോടതി മുമ്പാകെ സത്യം ബോധിപ്പിച്ചു കൊളളാം, സത്യവിരുദ്ധമായി യാതൊന്നും ബോധിപ്പിക്കില്ല" എന്ന് തന്നെ പറഞ്ഞ് കൊടുക്കണം (Pls refer Indian Oaths Act & Civil Rules of Practice for correct Oath)

👉🏿 മൊഴി പേജിന്റെ ഇരുവശത്തും എഴുതണം

👉🏿 സാക്ഷിയും കമ്മീഷണറും എല്ലാ പേജിലും ഒപ്പിടണം, ഇരു ഭാഗം വക്കീലന്മാരും ഒപ്പിടണം (CRP അങ്ങനെ തന്നെ വ്യക്തമാക്കിയിട്ടുണ്ട്)

👉🏿 ആദ്യത്തെ പേജ് deposition Sheet തന്നെ വേണം

👉🏿 ചീഫ് അഫിഡവിറ്റിന്റെ തുടർച്ചയായി നമ്പരിടണം, 1, 2 എന്ന് Cross ൽ നമ്പരിട്ടു പോകരുത്

👉🏿 Re-examination Cross ന്റെ അന്നു തന്നെ രേഖപ്പെടുത്തണം

👉🏿 രേഖകൾ mark ചെയ്യുമ്പോൾ സാക്ഷിയെ വിസ്തരിക്കുന്ന ഭാഗം നേരിട്ട് തരുന്ന രേഖകൾ വാങ്ങി മാർക്ക് ചെയ്യരുത്, മുൻകൂട്ടി കോടതിയിൽ ഹാജരാക്കി സീൽ ചെയ്ത് വരുന്നത് മാത്രം മാർക്ക് ചെയ്യുക (See Or.13, Rule 1)

👉🏿 Cross Examine ചെയ്യുന്ന സമയം എതിർ ഭാഗം വക്കീലിന് സ്വന്തം കെട്ടിൽ നിന്ന് സാക്ഷിയെ രേഖയെടുത്ത് കാണിച്ച് ആയത് സാക്ഷി അഡ്മിറ്റ് ചെയ്താൽ mark ചെയ്യാം! (കോപ്പി നേരത്തേ കൊടുത്തില്ല എന്ന് തർക്കം ഉന്നയിച്ച് കാണുന്നുണ്ട്, അത് തെറ്റായ തർക്കമാണ് ) Ref: Or. 13 R 2 CPC)

👉🏿 ഒരു രേഖയുടേയും പകർപ്പ് കോടതി ഉത്തരവിന്റെ അഭാവത്തിൽ എതിർ ഭാഗത്തിന് നൽകാൻ Provision ഇല്ല, Doc schedule മാത്രം നൽകിയാൽ മതി. (Or.13 R 1)

👉🏿 Leading question ചോദിക്കുമ്പോൾ മാത്രം (Q) & (A) ആയി എഴുതുക, അല്ലാത്തപ്പോൾ 1st Person ൽ ഉത്തരം എഴുതണം

👉🏿 സാക്ഷിയുടെ വികാരപ്രകടനങ്ങൾ മൊഴി എഴുതുമ്പോൾ രേഖപ്പെടുത്തണം!

👉🏿 Commissionerക്ക് decisions എടുക്കാൻ അധികാരമില്ല, ചോദിക്കുന്ന ചോദ്യം, എതിർ ഭാഗം പറയുന്ന objection, അതിന്റെ ഉത്തരം എന്നിവ എഴുതുക, അല്ലാതെ objection പറഞ്ഞാൽ എഴുതാതിരിക്കാൻ അധികാരം ഇല്ല !

👉🏿 മൊഴി എഴുതിയതിനു ശേഷം C R P Rule 163 അനുസരിച്ച് സർട്ടിഫൈ ചെയ്യുക.

( Thanks to Jagadeesh Adv)

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT ON VAKALATNAMA

In one of its ongoing requests, the Bombay High Court has forced expenses of ₹10, 000 on three candidates after they were not able clarify a produced thumb impact on the Vakalatnama for their situation.The Court additionally guided its library to record a criminal objection in the issue.

It thus observed,

"It is trite that a person seeking equitable relief from the Court must approach the Court with clean hands. If the Court finds that such a person has not approached the Court with clean hands and has taken resort to means which are highly questionable, not only would he be dis-entitled to any relief from the Court but would also be liable to face such other action as is contempt in law, more particularly under the Indian Penal Code."

The order came out when the Court was hearing a writ plea filed by four petitioners seeking to quash an order by an Additional Collector (Encroachment/Eviction) and a High-Power Committee of the State Government

The Court noted that the petitioners, this year had sought to withdraw their plea.However, one of the respondents, through Learned Counsel pointed out that the fourth petitioner, Rakesh Thomas Jadhav, was not a resident of India and that he had not given instructions to file the present plea on his behalf.Then also, his name was incorporated in the list of Petitioners.To support this, a thumb impression stated to be his was embossed on the Vakalatnama. Learned Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had earlier put the signature on a complaint before the Police.It was noted that if the petitioner could sign on the complaint before the Police, it was unlikely that he would put a thumb impression on the Vakalatnama.Finding substance in the arguement, the Court directed that the remaining three petitioners to explain why the fourth petitioner had only affixed his thumb impression on the Vakalatnama when his signature on the Police complaint clearly indicated that he wasn't an illiterate person and that he was capable fo signing documents.The Court wasn't satisfied with the replies submitted by the petitioners.This is one of the top most legal judgements in India.

Therefore, in the end, it concluded that the petition was filed on behalf of the fourth petitioner without his instructions or by forging his thumb impression on Vakalatnama.The Court observed on this,"Court is of the view that Petitioners have not only not approached the Court with clean hands but their conduct appears to be contumacious as well, besides attracting relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code."

summation

Definition of summation

1: the act or process of forming a sum : ADDITION

2: SUM, TOTAL

3: cumulative action or effectespecially : the process by which a sequence of stimuli that are individually inadequate to produce a response are cumulatively able to induce a nerve impulse

4: a final part of an argument reviewing points made and expressing conclusions

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 has been approved by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgement of Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India,

The Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 has been approved by the Supreme Court in its landmark judgement of Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India, making it the first attempt to bring the protection of witness under the ambit of law and putting the responsibility on the State to implement it effectively.

HIGHLIGHTS

Supreme Court approved the government's draft Witness Protection Scheme

States have been asked to follow the draft rules until a law is made

The scheme prescribes a number of measures to be taken to protect a witness

The Supreme Court today gave its seal of approval to a draft witness protection plan prepared by the government. The plan, called the Witness Protection Scheme, will have to be implemented by all states, except Jammu and Kashmir (which has a separate constitution), until Parliament turns the draft into law, the Supreme Court ruled today.

A Supreme Court bench headed by Justice A K Sikri said it has made some changes to the draft plan, which has been prepared by the Centre in consultation with the states.

The hearing in the Supreme Court today was on a petition that had sought protection for witnesses in the rape cases involving Asaram Bapu. (Witnesses in those cases have come under sometimes fatal attacks.)

During a previous hearing, the government had told the Supreme Court that it had formed a draft witness protection scheme that would be turned into a law "in due course".

Until then, the government said, the Supreme Court could ask states to follow this draft scheme.

Today, the Supreme Court did just that, asking states to follow the draft Witness Protection Scheme until it is made into a law.

According to a previous draft published by the government, the Witness Protection Scheme allows for various measures that must be undertaken in order to protect people who appear as witnesses in criminal cases.

This could range from ensuring that witnesses do not come face-to-face with the accused to giving them close proximity protection.

Some of the other protective measures include monitoring of mail and phone calls, change of phone number, installation of CCTV cameras at the witness's home and concealment of identity.

In exceptional cases, the government can also help change a witness's identity.

Attorney-Client Privilege In India

A "privileged professional communication" is a protection awarded to a communication between the legal adviser and the client. Professional communications and confidential communications with the legal advisors have been accorded protection under The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ("the Act").

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution

The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution addresses criminal procedure and other aspects of the Constitution. It was ratified in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. The Fifth Amendment applies to every level of the government, including the federal, state, and local levels, as well as any corporation, private enterprise, group, or individual, or any foreign government in regard to a US citizen or resident of the US. The Supreme Court furthered the protections of this amendment through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

One provision of the Fifth Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Another provision, the Double Jeopardy Clause, provides the right of defendants to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The self-incrimination clause provides various protections against self-incrimination, including the right of an individual to not serve as a witness in a criminal case in which they are the defendant. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term often used to invoke the self-incrimination clause when witnesses decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them. In the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that the self-incrimination clause requires the police to issue a Miranda warning to criminal suspects interrogated while under police custody. The Fifth Amendment also contains the Takings Clause, which allows the federal government to take private property for public use if the government provides "just compensation."

Like the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment includes a due process clause stating that no person shall "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies to the federal government, while the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to state governments. The Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause as providing two main protections: procedural due process, which requires government officials to follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty, or property, and substantive due process, which protects certain fundamental rights from government interference. The Supreme Court has also held that the Due Process Clause contains a prohibition against vague laws and an implied equal protection requirement similar to the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.