FIRST LAW

Penal Code, 1860  - S.376(2)(f) - Prosecutrix turned hostile contending that she had suffered injury in a fall - Mere fact that the victim may have turned hostile, is not relevant and does not efface the evidence with regard to the sexual assault upon her and the identification of the appellant as the perpetrator.  Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat, JT 2018 (9) SC 412 : 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 448 : 2018 (13) Scale 649   Crl.A. No. 913 of 2016 28-09-2018

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S. 138 - Handwriting Expert - Forensic Science Laboratory is heavily over burdened - May examine private Handwriting Expert as defence witness. Rajesh Kumar Meena v. State of Rajasthan, 04-09-2018 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 327, 386 & 309 - Quashing of Proceedings - Son is being prosecuted at the instance of father - court cannot loose sight of the adage that every sinner has a future and every saint has a past - trial court shall afford an opportunity to reform. Madhur Mohan Sabu v. State of Rajasthan, 10-09-2018 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 125 - Family Court Act, 1984 - Section 19 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 24, 28 - Husband has to maintain and must maintain his wife, that being pious obligation to discharge as per Hindu Shastra. Rinku @ Parmendra v. Avdesh, 10-09-2018 bit.ly/CMA4300of2018 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 173 (8...

1. Jodhpur Sanchita @ Shilpi v. State [Rajasthan High Court] Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 342, 354-A, 370(4), 376(2)(f), 376D, 506, 509/34, 109/120-B- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Ss. 23 & 26 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Ss. 5(f), 5(g), 6, 7, 8 r/w. 17 - the prosecutrix, a 12 th Standard student - applicant-appellant, who was working as Warden of the hostel, where the prosecutrix was residing - convicting and sentencing the applicant-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376D IPC, Sections 5(g)/6 and 17 of POCSO Act. 

1. Anup Sarmah v. Bhola Nath Sharma,  2012 (4) ACC 697 In an agreement of hire purchase, the purchaser remains merely a trustee/bailee on behalf of the financier/financial institution and ownership remains with the latter. Thus, in case the vehicle is seized by the financier, no criminal action can be taken against him as he is re-possessing the goods owned by him.

1. Amrik Singh v. State [ Jammu & Kashmir High Court] Hire Purchase Agreement - if financer takes back motor vehicle due to default in payment of installment, no process could be issued against the financer u/s 395 IPC on the basis of exaggeration version of the complainant. Sardar Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850  Referred

(1).Amar Jeet Singh Bhalla Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 10-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 733 (2).Sita Devi Mange Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 07-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 731 (3).Vikram Nange Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others[M.P. HIGH COURT] 07-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 732 (4).Rahul Parmar Vs. State of M.P.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 06-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 730 (5).Yogesh Chauksey Vs. State of M.P. & others[M.P. HIGH COURT] 05-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 729 (6).Lallu Vs. State of MP & Another[M.P. HIGH COURT] 04-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 728 (7).Santosh and another Vs. State of M.P.[M.P. HIGH COURT] 01-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 726 (8).Mohd. Arif S/o Abdul Hafiz Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh[M.P. HIGH COURT] 01-09-2018 2018 Legal Eagle 727

1. Century Comforts v. State of Karnataka, 14-09-2018  Hotel Industry - Denial of exemption in payment of Stamp Duty, which was promised by the State Government - The petitioner was called upon to establish a Hotel under the Tourism policy of the State Government. The Tourism policy and the order made in the Tourism policy provides that the concession and incentives can be availed by the persons who establish the Hotels in terms of the Tourism policy for a period of five years starting from 20.10.2009 to 19.10.2014. The approval granted on 13.04.2010 to the petitioner was well within the period stated in the order dated 20.10.2009. The petitioner having acted in terms of the promise held out by the respondents, the subsequent notification issued by the Department of Revenue fixing the period as 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014, is clearly detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The non- coordination between the Department of Tourism and Department of Revenue, which gave rise to t...