Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Delhi High Court stated that a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 was made against K. Kavitha based on the material placed on record.
“There is clear distinction between rape and a consensual sex. The Court in such cases carefully examined whether accused actually wanted to marry victim or had a malafide motive and had made a false promise to this effect to satisfy his lust, as latter false ambit of cheating or deception. There is a distinction between breach of promise or not fulfilling the promise.”
The Court opined that given the serious nature of allegations, petitioner(s) did not deserve the privilege of pre-arrest bail.
The Court referred to Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770, wherein it was held that the charge under MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the syndicate commits organised crime either individually or jointly.
The High Court quashed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board remanding the accused minor to an Observation Home.
The Court held that the benefit of reasonable doubt shall be given to the appellants and therefore partly allowed both the appeals, by acquitting them under Section 302 of IPC, and releasing the incarcerated appellants sentenced under Section 307 of IPC, for having served the ordered sentence period.
The Delhi High Court stated that the period of sentence served by a convict is only one of the several factors that are to be taken into consideration while adjudicating an application seeking suspension of sentence.
“If any part of the offence or even one instance of the overt act is committed in India, the sanction under Section 188 CrPC is not required”
The Court emphasised on the settled position that when two views are possible to a case, then the one that is favours the accused must be adopted.
The Court noted that cognizance of the offence was not taken by the Trial Court as stipulated by Section 2(d) of the MCOCA, therefore, the accused persons could not be prosecuted on the charges of S. 3 MCOCA.
‘While the victim/complainant has a right to be heard in the revision proceedings, such right does not upscale itself to a right to be impleaded in the said criminal revision’
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.
“Request for the addition of the charge under section 370 IPC, as it stood prior to 2013, cannot be made at the instance of the prosecution. An addition of charge has to be done by the Court based upon its own satisfaction and not at the behest of any of the parties to the trial”
“Considering the facts of the present petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that interest of justice would be served if the information as sought by the petitioner is provided”
The Delhi High Court says that efforts must be taken to teach children about critical thinking skills to assess the credibility of online contacts and safeguard their personal information.
Aurangabad bench of Bombay High Court set aside orders refusing Thackeray’s discharge in case of abetment of violence
“For a special statute, such as the IT Act, to override the general law, such as the IPC, the ingredients of the offence under both laws must be the same. If any ingredient of an offense under the IPC is missing in the act made punishable under the special statute, the IPC will not be excluded, and it can still be resorted to.”
“For attracting the provision of Section 420 of the IPC, the FIR/complaint must show that the ingredients of Section 415 of the IPC are made out.”
While considering the complexities introduced by dating apps like Bumble, the court balanced the need for bail with the imperative of upholding the integrity of the trial process.
Jharkhand High Court said that it was apparent that the incidence took place on 11-01-2008 for which the case and counter case were lodged.