I secured this internship after taking an interview post my
application via email and received confirmation through e-mail
within a week. One of the major advantages of interning under
Mr. Vikas Adana is that the interns learn about time
management and everyone has to complete their tasks within the
time assigned.
For a period of three weeks, I had the opportunity to intern
under Vikas Adana, Advocate and Chairman of AIBA. He is a
respected lawyer with numerous feathers in his cap; working
hours were strict, and extended from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
The first day of internship was all about introduction with the
interns and meeting new people and the process is gradual and
allow oneself to involve in matters concerning success and
illusory aspects of the legal profession. It involves about
discerning hard hitting facts, learning about the complexities
involved in the legal system. Initially it was all about reading
files and researching about the cases and law on the legal
databases.
Day 2:
I had to go Supreme Court to make observations regarding
matter dealt in the Supreme Court and accordingly went to the
court and observed as follows and reported to the office.
Case study: Harvinder Singh V. Paramjit Singh & ors.
Facts: Suit for possession of land to the extent of the share filed
in trial court based on land being ancestral, joint Hindu
possession, the will is null & void. The trial court gives the
findings that the will is devoid of any merit & the order that the
land is an ancestral property. On an appeal by beneficiaries of
the will, the learned appellate judge hold that predecessor –in –
interest of the parties to the suit, was not ancestral, but self –
acquired and, hence, he was competent to alienate the same in
any manner as he liked; that will be validly executed and that the
findings recorded by the learned trial judge on that score was
unsustainable. On the account of settlement between the
appellant & plaintiff, the trial order was set aside. But the
Defendant No.5 filed an appeal before the High court under
Section 100 C.P.C which held that appeal is not maintainable.
Issues:
1. Whether the defendant No.5 cannot be regarded as
aggrieved party to assail the impugned decree invoking the
jurisdiction of the High court under section 100 C.P.C?
2. Whether appeal could lie against a mere finding for the
simple reason that the code does not provide for such an
appeal?
3. Whether the finding would operate as Res Judicata in the
subsequent proceeding?
Held: Though the High court has referred to the said
pronouncement, yet it has not applied the ratio correctly to the
facts. In the present case, as we find, the plaintiff claiming to be
co-sharer filed the suit and challenged the will. The plaintiff
entered into a settlement with the contesting defendants who had
preferred an appeal. Such a decree, we a disposed to think,
prejudicially affects the defendant No.5 and, therefore, he could
have preferred an appeal. The same having been unsettled, the
benefit accrued in his favour become extinct.
DAY 3:
Parbin Ali and Another v. State of Assam
Appeal directed against the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the Guwahati High court whereby the
Division Bench of the High court gave the stamp of approval to
the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Silchar under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code
and order of sentence sentencing the accused-appellant to the
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 500/-, in default, to
suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Held: Having said that all the discrepancies which have been
brought put are not material, we may address to the issue of
delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is perceptible from the evidence
that the father-in-law of the deceased had gone to the police
station and lodged the ezahar and, therefore, an F.I.R was
lodged. The learned trial Judge has analyzed the said aspect in
an extremely careful and cautious manner and on a closer
scrutiny; we find that the analysis made by him is impeccable. In
view of our aforesaid analysis, we conclude and hold that the
appeal is sans substratum and, accordingly, the same has to pave
the path of dismissal which we direct.
DAY 4:
Miscellaneous matters, generally related for directions and
office report, adjourned matters and fresh matters mostly related
to delay in filing of SLP or ex-parte stay or see permission to
file additional matters.
1. In a matter related to 498- A IPC matter were referred to
the Ranchi mediation center where appellant is praying to
seek transfer.
2. In a matter connected to quashing of complaint under sec-
482 Cr.p.c read with Art. 32 before Supreme Court and
under Art. 226 before High court where such pray was
dismissed , but here learned counsel raised the issue that
wife has filed complaint in sec-346,323 & 379 IPC which
was completely malafide, based on false allegations,
require re-examination, as FIR & closure report has already
been filed, the Hon’ble court allows the matter.
3. In a matter of cheque under NI Act an important legal
question is raised that whether all the five essential
ingredients of sec. 138 of NI Act, took place at different
places will create independtly a cause of action in different
places .
4. In a matter, regarding reservation benefits to Ad-hoc posts,
the Hon’ble court simply says such principle of reservation
can’t be applied in Ad-hoc posts, matter dismissed.
DAY 5:
Research Question :
Whether if the punishment or penalty is altered by law through
amendment & maximum punishment or penalty is unaltered, is
it an ex-post facto, a law which is violative of art.20(1)?
In doing the research, I came across three case laws, two from
the U.S. court and another one are from Indian courts, Calder v
Bull which laid down the principles & its applications involved
in ex-post facto law.
1. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of
the law. And which was innocent when done, criminal; and
punishes such action.
2. Every Law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than
it was. When committed
3. Every Law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a
greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime,
when committed.
4. Every Law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and
receives less, or different, testimony than the law required
at the time of the commission of offence, in order to
convict the offender.
In Dovert v. Florida which says that even if the punishment or
penalty is modified where its maximum limits is unaltered, then
it is just a procedural change and it does affect the vested rights
of the accused and it is not violative of Art. 20(1) of the Indian
constitution. Similarly in Satwant Singh v State of Punjab(1960)
SCR 89 that maximum penalty remains unaltered as this is
prescribed by section 14 B which remains the same. Therefore,
when the exercise of discretion is governed by more rational and
generally better guidelines, such guidelines must be applied
from the date when they come into existence.
DAY 6:
Research Question:
To understand the scope of “Per Incuriam” doctrine and how it
has been utilized by common law courts in England and U.S.
and how it has been enunciated by supreme court of India by
understanding the application of “Per Incuriam” doctrine?
I analyzed the doctrine as per the doctrine applied by the courts
in India in cases Philip Jeysingh v The Joint Registrar , Rashmi
Rekha Thatoi & Anr v State of Orissa & ors. , Where it is
concluded that the decisions of the court of Appeal upon
questions of law must be followed by Divisional courts and
courts of first instance and as a general rule are binding on the
court of Appeal until a contrary determination has been arrived
at by the House of Lords.
DAY 7:
This day involved client observation and briefing by the client to
a lawyer and also observing the part of the judicial process and
the functioning of the courts.
Litigation which accrues has to run its course. Civil litigation
commences with a plaint. There are summons to the defendant,
receiving of his response (written statement) and other predatory
procedures followed by a first hearing at which issues are
framed. Then, there is trial at which evidence of both sides are
recorded. The court requires evidence so as to be able to
adjudicate disputed contention of facts. From commencement to
culmination of the judicial process is the ground which we have
to cover. It is here that we have to remove impediments and
improve efficiencies. While doing so, we have to differentiate
between processing time, waiting time and hearing time. We
have also to examine today’s pattern of litigation, the
bottlenecks being encountered together and the kinds of abuse of
legal procedures are subjected to. Unless they can be understood
and identified, the solution will continue to be elusive.
All stakeholders in the legal system have long recognized the
importance of reducing delays, but little has been done towards
reform. Attention must be paid to ensure that the judicial
administration is efficient and people are able to get results
fairly, with confidence & trust in reasonable time and at a
reasonable cost. The quantum of disputes and other aberrations
which arise from various walks of life, be it economic, social or
administrative, and reach the courts is only a portion of the
actual. It is time that effort is made to achieve not only an
effective and efficient functioning of the system but also one
that ensures welfare and speedy disposal of cases.
DAY 8:
There is 15-20 years delay in trial; accused is partly responsible
for the delay, whether the accused can quash the proceedings of
the trial court under section 482 Cr.p.c & Art. 226 before High
court & Art. 32 before the Supreme Court raising plea of his
violation of fundamental rights of speedy trial?
I analyzed the concept of speedy trial as used in U.S. Supreme
Court as well as in India, and also the nature & ambit of Section
482 Cr.p.c & powers given under Art.226 to High court &
Art.32 to supreme court.
Smith v Hooey, Barker v. Wingo, Strunk v. United States,
where it was held that a defendant in federal position charged
with Texas state crime was denied the right to a speedy trial
when Texas still had not prosecuted him for the crime after
seven years. Held that the case must be thrown out. In another
case, it was held that violation of the speedy trial clause must be
decided on a case –by-case basis, taking into four factors:
1. Length of the Delay;
2. Reason for the Delay;
3. Whether and when the defendant asserted his right to a
speedy trial;
4. Degree of harm to the defendant caused by the delay.
Held that a defendant in custody on different charges maintains
the sixth amendment right to a speedy trial on new charges.
