Month: April 2017

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 300 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 9, 45 – Murder – Identification of dead body – Finger prints of deceased taken through spoon method – Receipt produced by prosecution bearing thumb impression of deceased, not proved – Comparison of finger prints of deceased with that of thumb impression – Would be of no consequence

  AIR 2007 SC 1028 : (2007) CLT 847 Supp : (2006) 12 SCALE 470 : (2006) 9 SCR 733 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SADASHIO MUNDAJI BHALERAO — Appellant…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 465(2) – Sanction for prosecution – Irregularity in – Effect of – Irregularity in sanction would not by itself render the trial vitiated. Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act-Section 3(4) – Harbour – Meaning of – Must be understood in its ordinary meaning as for penal provision – Mens rea is not excluded from constituting harbouring.

  AIR 1998 SC 201 : (1998) CriLJ 369 : (1997) 9 JT 18 : (1997) 6 SCALE 689 : (1997) 8 SCC 732 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA KALPNATH RAI…

Service Matters

The criminal charge and the charge in the departmental enquiry were entirely different. The appellate court in the criminal case came to the conclusion that since the two ladies had not supported the prosecution case, the charges against the appellant were not proved – It is a settled proposition of law that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiries.

  (1998) 8 SCC 723 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 257 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF T.N. — Appellant Vs. M.A. WAHEED KHAN — Respondent ( Before : Kuldip Singh, J;…

Order 8, Rule 1 after the amendment casts an obligation on the defendant to file the written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons on him and within the extended time falling within 90 days. The provision does not deal with the power of the court and also does not specifically take away the power of the court to take the written statement on record though filed beyond the time as provided for.

  2007(3) LAW HERALD (SC) 2232 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Balasubramanyan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.