3 Important Manipur High Court Judgments October 2018

1. Thokchom Krishnakumar Singh v. State of Manipur

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 - Petitioner has a remedy to approach the concerned Special Court for determining as to whether the victim was a minor or major at the time of occurrence of the incident.

Before : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh

For the petitioner : R.K. Nokulsana, Sr. Advocate

For the respondents : Niranjan Sanasam, GA

Date of order : 09-10-2018

Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 934 of 2018

2. R.K. Thekho v. State of Manipur

Manipur Forest Rules, 1971 - Rule 81 (4) - Eviction - the case of the petitioners is that they have been residing in the said village on the strength of the Zamabandi issued under the provisions of the MLR and LR Act, 1960 and therefore, the said village does not fall within the forest area. The instant writ petition is disposed of with a liberty being granted to the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority.

Before : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh

Date of order : 05-10-2018

Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 889 of 2018

3. Heisnam Basanta Meitei v. State of Manipur

Manipur Forest Rules, 1971 - Rule 81 (5) - Petitioners were directed to submit an explanation as to why they be not removed from the forest area. The instant writ petition stands disposed of with a direction that the petitioners may approach the Appellate Authority.

Before : Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kh. Nobin Singh

For the petitioners : E. Premjit, Advocate.

For the respondents Y. Ashang, Government Advocate

Date of order : 05-10-2018

Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 923 of 2018

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog