After the abrupt split of the State of Andhra Pradesh, this Act was passed…
Here is the gazette of Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014
Tag: Work-In-Progress Article
Kondru Maridiyya Vs State of AP on 26 Jul 2021
Another scam exposes the looting hand of some in power. This time illegal Bauxite mining in the name of Laterite Stone mining. The case is ongoing…
Index of the devilish acts on this cabal here.
Lakshmi Puri Vs Saket Gokhale on 13 Jul 2021
The single judge of Delhi High Court pass injunction orders against the serial online abuser/leech and also directed Twitter to delete tweets if the leech fails to delete them within 24 hours.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Kishanvihari Sharma Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors
Two vital and interesting legal questions of interpretation have reached a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High court.
On 09 Jun 2021,
The Court framed the questions that need determination
(1) As to whether the provision of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. can be invoked by accused alleging improper/delayed investigation or not ?
(2) As to whether the provision of Section 161 Cr.P.C. providing for examination of witnesses by the police can include examination of accused also or not, only for the purpose of ascertaining the truth and not for recording confession ?
On 24 Jun 2021,
Noting from the submissions of the rival counsels, the Bench held that there are conflicting decision from the Supreme Court on the legal points for determination and so opened up the questions to the entire Bar and sought assistance from the Bar Association.
On first week of Aug 2021,
Pidathala Satyam Babu Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 13 Jan 2013
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/36915031/
State of Karnataka Vs M. Devendrappa and Anr on 16 Jan 2002
A 3 judge bench citing Bhajan lal judgment here, held as follows:
In dealing with the last case, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is function of the trial Judge. Judicial process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of private complainant as unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly.
Finally, it was held that, there were grounds to Quash the proceedings, by saying,
the involvement of excise officials cannot be ruled out and when they have been indicated to be witnesses, likelihood of prejudice cannot be ruled out. It was also noted that there was no “definite evidence” to show that accused nos. 1&2 were directly involved. Finally, it was observed that there was no material to hold that the accused persons had committed theft of “Letter Heads” from Karnataka Bank Ltd., and/or they had committed forgery for the purpose of cheating or have used genuine forged documents or had cheated the government. Finally, it was observed that there was no evidence to infer common intention to commit such offences.
Citations : [2002 SCC 3 89], [2002 SCALE 1 176], [2002 AIR SC 671], [2002 SCR 1 275], [2002 CRLJ SC 998], [2002 SCC CRI 539], [2002 UJ SC 1 362], [2002 AIR SC 286], [2002 SUPREME 1 192], [2002 ACR SC 1 605], [2002 ALD CRI 1 412], [2002 SCSUPPL CHN 2 21], [2002 UC 1 294], [2002 AIR SCW 286], [2002 JT SC 1 213]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1014506/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adc4e4b0149711412362
