Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court emphasised the need for the trial court to adhere to legal procedures and directed to proceed with the trial from the date preceding the date of the order under revision.
Supreme Court noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of Section 173 (8) is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under Section 173 (2) against the accused.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and, in a special hearing on Saturday, 27.01.2024, stayed the Single Judge Bench’s order directing the handover of case papers related to the alleged issuance of fake caste certificates to the CBI, despite a division bench stay order.
In the case relating to allegations of issuance of fake caste certificates, the Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court had directed the handover of papers related to the case of alleged issuance of fake caste certificates to the CBI, despite the stay order of a division bench.
The instant matter is related to selection of the candidates who have scored less marks than the petitioners in the Selection Test, 2016 for Assistant Teachers in secondary schools.
The accused is the President of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, a State Political party in the State of Jharkhand and a sitting Member of the Parliament in Rajya Sabha nominated from the State of Jharkhand.
“The concerned Investigating Agency cannot expect anyone who is an accused, to sing in a tune which is music to their ears, more so, whence such an accused, is well and truly protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.”
The petitions are premised upon a show cause notice issued by DRI promulgating that the intelligence has indicated that various entities of Adani Group and Essar Group were indulging in gross over-valuation of imported goods (zero or low duty rated) to siphon off money abroad from Public Listed Companies.
The individual against whom the allegations are made, ought to be a ‘Public Servant’ whose appointing authority is the Central Government or the State Government to entitle him to the protection under section 197 CrPC and not to every public servant.
The PIL sought transfer of cases pending before investigating agencies to any other independent agencies or CBI.
“If the documents/ score card given by the candidate, downloaded from the website of the NTA, were genuine, then the candidate should get admission into his choicest institution of the country, like IIT or NIT. But, if the documents are found to be not genuine, then CBI should ascertain how the same was obtained by the candidate, so that such mistake cannot be made by the authorities in future.”
The Finance Section of Pondichery University had found that from 2008 to 2016 a Professor had misappropriated the funds financed by the Government of India using fake and forged bills causing a wrongful loss to the Government of India to the tune of Rs.2.25 Crores.
The petitioners were duty bound to supply packaged drinking water of IRCTC’s brand called Rail Neer but instead have been supplying other packaged drinking water, a brand cheaper than Rail Neer, but claiming reimbursement at the rate of Rail Neer causing loss to the Government Exchequer.
The Delhi High Court and Rose Avenue District Court had previously denied the Ex-Deputy Chief Minister’s Bail plea.
Supreme Court allowed SK Mishra to continue his services as ED Director till 31-07-2023.
On April 28, the Supreme Court sat to pass a stay order on Calcutta High Court’s Justice Abhijit Gangopadhyay’s order directing SC’s Secretary General to produce the transcript of his “controversial” interview, wherein he had made remarks against Abhishek Banerjee in relation to the Teachers Recruitment Scam case, which was pending before him
The petitioner is a journalist having specialization in investigative, business, and human-interest news features, has exposed Coal Scam in 2011 and Airport scandal in Delhi, and received various awards from time to time.
Permitting the CBI to pick up one aspect of the investigation and file a piece-meal chargesheet with respect to the same and consequently, defeating the right of the applicant to default bail, goes against the mandate of Article 21.
The Court found that the conviction and life sentencing order suffered from patent infirmities and was based on presumptions.
The duty of the Court has been tried to be delegated to the prosecuting agency in the present case.