Supreme Court stayed the operation of AP HC Order of reinstatement of Sri A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS and issued notices to him, DGP and UOI returnable in 4 weeks.
Here are the GOs issued by State Government of AP sanctioning Legal fee and expenses for the attending this case for the the arguing Senior Counsel and the AoR.
Senior Advocate was paid Rs.3,00,000/- (For this appearance)
=============
Advocate on Record was paid Rs.1,00,000/- (For this appearance)
The DGP of AP Police Sri A.B. Venkateswara Rao IPS was suspended and here is the GO.
Upon filing a WP at AP High Court, the above suspension was set aside and the officer was reinstated.
State Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an SLP at Supreme Court here.
A academic query was posed to the High Court in these batch of Revisions as follows.
The thrust of the accused-petitioners in their arguments is to the effect that if charges under POCSO Act, 2012 do not survive then the case from the Special Court ( Sessions Judge, Jodhpur District, Jodhpur, who is trying the cases of POCSO Act, 2012) may be transferred to the regular Sessions Court where presumption under Sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012 will not be available against the petitioner and the accused-petitioners will be benefited accordingly.
And then after perusing provisions of POCSO Act, Juvenile Justice Act, IPC, the Court observed and ordered as follows:
It has been argued on behalf of accused Asharam@Ashumal that at the most his conduct may come within the definition of attempted fellatio and he cannot be charged for the offence of fellatio. The conduct of the accused asking the girl to suck his organ is called fellatio. Had the girl started sucking his organ, it would have been argued that it was her consensual act. Certainly the charge of attempt to fellatio is graver offence than the fellatio itself. So, the charge even if it relates to fellatio, it will cover the charge of attempted fellatio and the accused is not going to be prejudiced when the charge of fellatio has been framed against him in place of attempted fellatio. Some times the prosecutrix, who is a minor girl may hesitate to tell complete truth before the Investigating Officer and many a times it happens in such type of cases that the prosecutrix unfolds the complete truth only during the camera trial when she is assured that nobody will be able to cause any harm to her because of her statement. Hon’ble the Supreme Court has mandated that in cases of Section 304 B IPC, a charge of Section 302 IPC should also be framed against the accused and on the same logic, this Court hereby directs all the trial courts in Rajasthan that in all cases of attempt to commit rape, a charge for the offence of rape should also be framed against the accused so that, at the stage of conclusion of the trial, the Court may not have to undertake tedious process of amendment of charge and recalling the witnesses causing serious prejudice to the cause of justice in such cases.
Citations : [2014 SCC ONLINE RAJ 1812], [2014 RLW 3 2596], [2014 WLC 4 481]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/83475160/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea742f607dba36cc74581c
Supreme Court held that. ‘a Civil/Trial Court can accept the written statement even after statutory time limit of 90 days‘, as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1.
15. In the instance case the trial court proceeded on the erroneous premises that there was no scope to accept the written statement after 90 days. The High Court by the impugned order held that though it had power, no case was made out to accept the prayer. We have considered the grounds indicated by the appellants seeking acceptance of the written statement filed belatedly. They cannot be considered to be trivial or without substance. In the case of this nature where close relatives are litigants a liberal approach is called for. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial court refusing acceptance of the written statement. The matter is not very complex. We request the trial court to complete trial of the suit within the period of six months. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.
Citations : [2009 ELT SC 240 1612008 AIR SC SUPP 7672008 SUPREME 8 7142008 SCC 17 1172009 BOMCR SC 1 812008 JT 13 442008 SCALE 15 5222008 AIOL 13332008 SLT 9 2982009 ALLMR SC 1 9212008 SCR 16 4692009 ELT 240 161]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90423/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae73e4b0149711413e98
Relatives not living in a shared household were implicated in a false DV case, so High Court of Chhattisgarh quashed the DV proceedings against the petitioners.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100106255/
https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nafisa-Anjum-Versus-State-of-Chhattisgarh-Through-Officer-In-Charge-Police-Station-2018-09-26
http://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=028102399000
Bad Behavior has blocked 496 access attempts in the last 7 days.
