5 Important Indian Case Laws Decided Today [Thursday, November 22, 2018]

1. Ganpat Prasad Mehta v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 173 - Irrespective of finding recorded by the Investigating Officer submitted before the court in accordance with Section 173 of the CrPC, the cognizance taking magistrate not at all is under compulsion to accept the same rather, the magistrate has got an option available (a) to accept the same, (b) to differ therefrom, (c) to direct further investigation.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/CrlM239of2016

Case Number : Crl.M. No. 239 of 2016

Bench : Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

2. Praveen Kumar Jain v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta [Allahabad High Court]

Rent Law - Mere fact that the tenant continues in possession and rent is accepted and the suit is not instituted are insufficient circumstances for inferring an intention to create a new tenancy after expiration of the first.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/CRev564of2011

Case Number : C.Rev. No. 564 of 2011 22.11.2018

Bench : Sangeeta Chandra, J.

3. Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 27 - Only the recovery of weapon of commission of offence would be taken to be admissible as a discovered fact pursuant to the disclosure made by the accused but not his confessional statement that he had murdered the deceased by the said weapon.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/CrlA737of2014

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 737 of 2014 22-11-2018

Bench : Ramesh Sinha and Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, JJ.

4. Dr. Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 125 & 482 - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7, 8, 10, 19 & 20 - Jurisdiction - Appeal - the area covered by the Family Courts Act, is the area properly demarcated and only to that extent, there would not be applicability of the Code.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/CrlM6740of2016

Case Number : Crl.M. No. 6740 of 2016 22-11-2018

Bench : Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.

5. Nisar Ahmed v. State of J&K [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Criminal Law - The courts while appreciating the evidence in criminal cases have to see the degree of proof is maximum than that of civil case. The evidence produced by prosecution should be legally admissible. If there comes the slightest doubt regarding the involvement of accused in commission of crime as alleged by prosecution, the Court should not go on convicting the accused. In arriving at conclusion about guilt of accused charged with heinous crime, the court has to judge the evidence by yardsticks of probabilities. The law does not permit the court to punish the accused on basis of moral conviction or suspicion. The burden of proof never shift, it is always on prosecution.

View Judgment : http://bit.ly/CRA29of2007

Case Number : C.R.A. No. 29 of 2007 22-11-2018

Bench : Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J.

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog