1. Kartik Chakraborty Vs. State of Assam, 2018 CriLJ 1253
Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 26 - Confession by accused while in custody of police not to be proved against him - Whether the expression Magistrate appearing in Section 26 of the Evidence Act would mean Judicial Magistrate or an Executive Magistrate? Held, the expression “Magistrate” appearing in Section 26 of the Evidence Act would mean only a Judicial Magistrate and not an Executive Magistrate. https://goo.gl/PU3GEJ
2. Niranjan Rana Vs. State of Odisha, 2018 CriLJ 1181
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 240 (2) - Framing of Charge - Section 240 of Cr.P.C. does not permit the accused to answer the charge through his counsel. https://goo.gl/VBaZsS
3. Pushpa Pandurang Mokal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2018 CriLJ 1176
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 169 - Without the Magistrate passing appropriate order in accordance with law on the final report, the Investigating Officer had no power to re-investigate the offence.Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 168 to 173 - Investigating Officer had no power to take back the original papers submitted to the Court for the purpose of carrying out re-investigation.
4. Hemraj Mali Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2018 CriLJ 1170
Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 460 & 380 - The Court below acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. but convicted the accused for the offence under Section 460 & 380 IPC without assigning any cogent reason, which is absolutely against the law and the facts of the case.5. Farooq Ahmed Bhat Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 2018 CriLJ 1168
Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 - S. 8 - From the perusal of grounds of detention, it is evident that the detaining authority at the time of passing of the order of detention was aware that the detenu is in custody and there is likelihood of him getting bail, therefore, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the detention order suffers from vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as, the detaining authority was not aware about the factum of release of the detenue on bail, cannot be accepted.
6. Meters and Instruments Private Limited Vs. Kanchan Mehta, 2018 CriLJ 1160
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S. 138 - In every summons, issued to the accused, it may be indicated that if the accused deposits the specified amount, which should be assessed by the Court having regard to the cheque amount and interest/cost, by a specified date, the accused need not appear unless required and proceedings may be closed subject to any valid objection of the complainant. https://goo.gl/pSde65
7. Ajay Kumar Reddy Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2018 CriLJ 1155
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Whether the protection provided under the Act is available to a divorcee wife - Held, In case of divorcee wife, the complaint by the divorcee wife under the provisions of the Act, 2005 shall be maintainable so far it relates to divorced husband for lawful responsibilities arising out of the marriage that existed between them at one point of time. https://goo.gl/eC3DC4
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete