This content is restricted to site members. If you are an existing user, please log in. New users may register below.
Witness – Interested witness – Remote enmity of the witness with the accused is not sufficient to discard the evidence.
Bysclaw
Apr 23, 2017By sclaw
Related Post
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 22(3) – Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A and 120B – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 16, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39 and 43D – The case involves the State of West Bengal appealing against a High Court judgment that quashed UAPA proceedings against the respondent due to jurisdiction issues – The Court reasoned that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction as per Section 22(3) of the NIA Act since the State had not constituted a Special Court – The Court discussed the modified application of Section 167 CrPC under Section 43D of UAPA and the definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2(1)(d) of UAPA. – The Supreme Court concluded that the City Sessions Court had the jurisdiction to pass the order adding UAPA offences and permitted the continuation of the trial.
Apr 27, 2024
sclaw
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – 147, 342, 323, 307 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 173(2) , 190 (1)(b) and 200 – Protest Petition – Magistrate to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint, proceeding according to Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C – The Court’s reasoning focused on the proper procedure for taking cognizance of an offence and the treatment of a Protest Petition when additional affidavits are filed – The conclusion emphasizes the Magistrate’s liberty to treat the Protest Petition as a complaint and the need to follow due process – The judicial opinion clarified the legal position regarding the Magistrate’s options upon receiving a closure report from the Investigating Officer.
Apr 27, 2024
sclaw
Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420,120B and 34 – Territorial jurisdiction for the FIR -The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings, concluding that the matter was civil, not criminal, and that Arunachal Pradesh lacked territorial jurisdiction – The Court found no evidence of a cognizable offence and deemed the dispute to be of a civil nature, suitable for resolution in a civil court – The Court applied the principle that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal complaints unless there is clear evidence of criminal intent or action – The FIR and subsequent proceedings were quashed, with the Court questioning why the State of Arunachal Pradesh pursued the case when the complainant did not challenge the Rajasthan High Court’s order.
Apr 27, 2024
sclaw