Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In a sexual harassment case of a 15-year-old girl, the charges under POCSO Act were added at the fag end of the trial, despite that the victim deposed during the examination that she was aged 15 years at the time of the incident.
“A prosecution witness, who was examined already, cannot be recalled by exercising the powers under Section 233 CrPC. However, such an exercise can be done under Section 311 CrPC at any stage, including that of Section 233, provided all the requirements and parameters of Section 311 are otherwise satisfied.”
(2023) 2 HCC (Bom) GST—Offences and Penalties—Arrest and Detention—Input tax credit—Issue of fake invoices in favour of non-existing entities and passing on
The unusual condition, which was imposed and later, was not modified, clearly shows that the Trial Court travelled beyond its powers and imposed such conditions, which was normally not required when granting bail.
Consumer Protection — Consumer Forums — Jurisdiction and Powers of Consumer Forum — Relegation to civil suit/ADR/Arbitration: Consumer disputes are non-arbitrable, [M.
MNLU Mumbai’s Centre for Research in Criminal Justice (CRCJ) is excited to invite legal professionals, academicians, and students to an enlightening session
Interviewed by Dikshi Arora
Supreme Court said that allowing the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to stand, will be unjust, unfair and oppressive, as the charges were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
The Supreme Court held that the Court cannot be limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death.
The Supreme Court was deciding the appeal against Allahabad High Court’s order wherein it had held that the petitioner could not continue to challenge the proceedings when he had not raised objections to the charge sheet or cognizance order in his first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Proof — Burden and Onus of proof — Recourse to S. 106 of the Evidence Act
“It is high time that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities, as they do in most cases in our country.”
Advocates — Senior Advocates — Designation of: Guidelines issued by Supreme Court in Indira Jaising, (2017) 9 SCC 766 for greater objectivity
The Supreme Court was of the opinion that the Rajasthan High Court seemed to have been primarily swayed by the delay in filing the complaint i.e. 13 months for granting bail in favour of the accused, without considering other important facts.
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”.
Criminal Law — Criminal Trial — Circumstantial Evidence — Generally: Principles reiterated relating to essential conditions that must be fulfilled before conviction
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.
