Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court directed the State to requisition and submit the case diary and relevant documents before the next date of hearing.
“Sanction of the Government, to prosecute a public officer, for any act related to the discharge of official duty, is imperative to protect the public officer from facing harassive, retaliatory, revengeful, and frivolous proceedings.”
While framing of charges, the Court ought to look at the limited aspect of whether, given the material placed before it, there is grave suspicion against the accused which is not properly explained. Though, for the purpose of conviction, the same must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
“The words used were not caste name nor there is allegation that the petitioners were known to the caste of the public servants, who had gone to remove the encroachments.”
Without mincing any words, the Court stated that the accused had miserably failed to get himself discharged when he had filed the application under S. 227 CrPC; still however, he filed another vexatious application seeking modification of charge under Section 216 of CrPC to derail the criminal proceedings.
The Court stated that the only test to be applied at the stage of framing of the charge is whether there is sufficient cause made out by the prosecution to proceed against the accused.
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.
Allahabad High Court has held that the Trial Court has, after analysing the entire facts and evidence have concluded that there is sufficient ground to frame charges against the accused, and thus has rejected the discharge application. So, there is no illegality in the impugned order
Supreme Court: In a case wherein concern was raised regarding common deficiencies and practices adopted by trial courts during criminal
City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay: In an application filed by Dr. P V Varavara Rao ‘applicant-accused’ seeking permission to
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., dismissed a revision petition filed against the order of the lower court refusing to discharge
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., for the reason of procedural lapses, quashed an order passed by the trial court wherein the Magistrate
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. dismissed the petitions filed by the accused
Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal petition filed under Section 438 of CrPC praying to enlarge the petitioners
Delhi High Court: While deciding a criminal revision petition, a Single Judge Bench held that it is not necessary that charges framed based