Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances and held that respondents are not public servants and accordingly exonerated them from offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
“The right of an Investigating Officer for further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not taken away only because the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC against the accused.”
“In the context of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, what needs to be seen is whether appellant has brought on the record any evidence to show that he is prosecuting the previously instituted suit with due diligence.”
The Special Judge opined that the prosecutrix’s conduct of never disclosing anything about incident to anybody nor seeking anybody’s help during relevant period, cast a serious doubt on her version of events.
NGT had highlighted the serious functional irregularity in efficiency and competence on the part of CECB officials, holding them guilty of offence under Section 26 of NGT Act for failure to comply with NGT order.
“The crime committed may be cruel or ruthless but the evidence on record has to be evaluated dispassionately and objectively to see whether the accused is responsible for the said crime or he is innocent”.
The Court was of the view that the depositions did not have the requisite sterling quality and inconsistencies in the same created serious doubt regarding the nature of the alleged sexual offence but also credibility of the deposition.
With Ex-RJD MP Prabhunath Singh’s highhandedness and the police, the public prosecutor and the Judiciary failing in their duty, the Supreme Court called the case an “exceptionally Painful Episode of Criminal Justice System”.
The Court stated that motive assumes great importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence as without motive, chain of events is incomplete.
If there is cogent evidence that the accused was shown to prosecution witnesses, refusal to participate in test identification parade by accused is justified and the said test identification parade cannot be used against the accused for any purpose. If identification in Test Identification Parade has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of Test Identification Parade inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless.
Kerala High Court viewed that the conviction and sentence passed by the lower courts suffered from illegality and could not be sustained.
Delhi High Court opined that the cause of death was found to be cranio cerebral damage consequent upon blunt force impact to the head which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that vicarious liability of a company’s directors can be imputed as per the statutory provisions in cases where a company is an offender.
The Court acquitted the accused and held that the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: In a case wherein it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under
Tripura High Court: In a public interest litigation seeking issuance of show cause to the respondents as to why a writ of
Supreme Court: The bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala*, JJ has explained the true import of Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention
Orissa High Court: In an appeal filed challenging the Trial court ruling, convicting the accused under Section 302 of Penal
Supreme Court: In an interesting case, where a man was convicted for murder of his younger brother, the bench of Sanjiv Khanna*