Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Supreme Court made clear that further investigation cannot be put at par with prosecution and punishment and hence, the principle of double jeopardy would not apply.
Orissa High Court said that a criminal trial is not an IPL T20 match where every ‘substitute player’ can be an ‘impact player’, engaging a new State Defence Council without providing him police papers is gross illegality.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
Constitution of India — Art. 14 — Right to equality — Reasonable accommodation of disabled or differently-abled persons — Requirement of: There
The observation of the Supreme Court came in a case where the deposition of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in English language though she had deposed in her vernacular language.
The Supreme Court observed that the prosecutrix had betrayed her husband and three children by having relationship with the accused during the subsistence of her marriage and had continued to live with the accused even after finding out that he was a married man having children.
The prayer seeking free public access to chargesheets and final reports was made relying on ruling in Youth Bar Association of India v. Union of India, (2016) 9 SCC 473, wherein the Supreme Court had directed copies of FIRs to be published within 24 hours of their registration on the police websites or on the websites of the State Governments.
Supreme Court observed that the principles of Administration of Justice states that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done and free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Kerala High Court held that the words ‘person with whom such prostitution is carried on’ as appearing in section 7(1) of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 will include a ‘customer’. Thus, a customer in a brothel can be proceeded against criminally.
The woman has alleged that she has been falsely implicated in a case of bigamy and cheating, on the basis of a clerical mistake committed by the Bank agent who mistakenly entered the name of her business partner as her husband and Nominee.
On 10.05.2019, a division Bench had observed that the question with regard to the actual stage at which the trial is said to have concluded is required to be authoritatively considered since the power under Section 319 of CrPC is extraordinary in nature.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of EWS Quota and dissent; Juvenility of Kathua gangrape-murder accused; acquittal of all Chhawla gangrape-murder accused; why Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts were set free, and more. It also covers reports on Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as the 50th CJI and his to-do-list; CJI UU Lalit’s retirement; explainers on important law points; some Never Reported Judgments; and career trajectory and important decision of Justice BR Gavai.
Uttaranchal High Court: While allowing the revision petitions, the single judge bench of Ravindra Maithani, J. has held that Sessions
“The prosecution has to bring home the charges levelled against them beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do in the instant case, resultantly, the Court is left with no alternative but to acquit the accused, though involved in a very heinous crime.”
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah and MM Sundresh, JJ has issued notice returnable on 25.11.2022 in the case relating to
Supreme Court: The bench of CT Ravikumar* and Sudhanshu Dhulia, JJ has held that merely because some of the convicts had died
Supreme Court: In a murder case, where the Madhya Pradesh High Court had reduced the sentence to sentence already undergone which was
Supreme Court: As Congress MP Karti P. Chidambaram has sought review of the 3-judge bench verdict on the Prevention of Money Laundering
Supreme Court: In an interesting case, where a man was convicted for murder of his younger brother, the bench of Sanjiv Khanna*