Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court observed that the involvement of the complainant remains a matter of judicial discretion rather than an enforceable entitlement, and the fundamental principle of juvenile justice i.e., ‘rehabilitation over retribution’ must remain paramount in any such determination.
‘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’
Calcutta High Court emphasised that the purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to determine guilt or innocence but to decide whether an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice.
“If in the present case, the petition is entertained, it will eventually subvert the procedure laid down under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the respondent in return will be denied the opportunity to present their case before the concerned NCLT.”
The Delhi High Court holds that there is no requirement in law to implead the victim to any criminal proceedings, whether instituted by the State or by the accused. The Court further directed the Registry to ensure that anonymity of the victims is strictly maintained.
In the case at hand, as the right to be heard was denied to the community certificate holder, the burden of proof to disprove the nature of the certificate, had not been discharged. Hence, the Supreme Court presumed the community certificate to be genuine.
In Union of India v. W.N. Chadha,1993 Supp (4) SCC 260, the bench of S. Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ explained the exclusion of the application of the principle of audi alteram partem in relation to an accused at the stage of investigation.
“The scenario is that any order or judgment passed by this Court becomes a reportable exercise to create more volumes of reported cases! This thus has a possibility at times of causing some confusion on the legal principles prevalent.”
Supreme Court: In an interesting case the Vacation Bench comprising Dinesh Maheshwari and Krishna Murari, JJ., disapproved a strange bail condition imposed
Supreme Court: In a big development in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant and
Supreme Court: In a case where the order of conviction and sentence was passed on the same day, the 3-judge bench of
“…the absence of reasons struck at the legitimacy of the impugned judgment. It caused prejudice no doubt, to the extent that the appellants were unable to furnish grounds on which their special leave petitions were based.”
Kerala High Court: V.G. Arun, J., dismissed the instant petition whereby the petitioner had challenged his re-incarceration contending violation of natural justice
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of RF Nariman, Navin Sinha and KM Joseph has reiterated the principles of natural justice as follows: