Legal Reference Library

Two Unitech   Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). The punitive measure was awarded after the real estate giant failed to give possessions of a residential unit in Mohali to two Delhi-based clients even after making the payment on time. Then, the commission sought explanation from the builder and asked them to settle dues of Rs 53 lakhs. Two Unitech Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/unitech-mds-get-3-yrsjail-as-company-fails-to-deliver-flats_6453641.html?utm_source=ref_article

The apex consumer commission has directed real-estate major Unitech Limited to pay over Rs 60 lakh to a Gurgaon resident for not giving him possession of an apartment booked a decade ago at Greater Noida. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the firm to pay the amount with an interest of 18 percent per annum, from the date the total demand amount was deposited with the Unitech, which is also facing several other complaints, including a joint claim by 144 home-buyers. A bench headed by Justice J M Malik held that the desire to acquire the property had "ruined the life" of the buyer and the real estate major "harassed" him by asking "for interest on the delayed payment when there was no progress of project". The consumer commission directed the firm to pay Rs 59,98,560 to Sanjay Arora, who had booked the flat in Sector Pi II, Greater Noida, in 2006, besides Rs one lakh for compensation and litigation charges. "As a matter of

The apex consumer commission slapped a penalty of 12 percent per annum on real estate major DLF Ltd to be given to 50 buyers for delaying giving possession of their flats in its Panchkula project in Haryana, saying it amounted to "cheating". The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench headed by Justice J M Malik directed the firm to hand over the apartments to buyers as per a list proposed by DLF for scheduled possession, failing which it will have to pay a penalty of Rs 5,000 per flat per day to the buyers till the project is completed. The bench noted that the firm had to give the possession of the property within three years including the grace period from the date of letter of allotment till possession was to be given by 2013. After this, it will have to pay interest till the period it has now proposed before the commission, it said. If the flats are not given till the period now proposed by the firm, it will carry a penalty of Rs 5,000 per day till

In a recent case, the district consumer disputes redressal forum directed the postmaster, Manimajra Post Office to refund Rs 29,042 and pay compensation of Rs 20,000 for failing to safely deliver a parcel sent by the sector 37-based complainant through speed post. The forum was of the view that a departmental inquiry should be conducted to ascertain why the parcel reached its destination in a tempered state. In his complaint, Ripan Kumar alleged that he sent medicines worth Rs 29,042 to Critical Drugs Agency, Imphal, Manipur through speed post vide receipt dated June 4, 2015. T he parcel, he said, reached Imphal on June 12, 2015 in a tampered condition after which authorities at the Imphal post office sent a report to the agency. During checking, it was found that the medicines ordered were missing. Thereafter, the parcel was returned to Ripan with a letter saying it was open when received. In its reply, the post master admitted that the speed post article weighing 5,880 grams was bo

Delhi High Court has held that when a deaf and dumb witness is under cross-examination, the Court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks through sign language and it may not be possible for that witness to answer, or in detail explain every answer by sign language and this disability of a limited vocabulary of sign language does not affect either the competence or the credibility of such witness. Justice Mukta Gupta has made the above observation while disposing an Appeal filed by Accused convicted for the offence defined under Section 9(k), punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, for sexually assaulting a 12 yr old deaf and dumb girl. The twin arguments raised by Counsel for the appellant are that since the prosecutrix could not be cross-examined her testimony cannot be read in evidence and even if the offence is proved against the appellant, the same would fall under Se

 Arbitral Proceedings will not come under the expression “other proceedings” of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, the Court held. The Supreme Court in M/s Umesh Goel vs.Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing ociety Ltd. has held that the expression “other proceedings” in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act does not include Arbitration Proceedings and the ban imposed under the said Section to can have no application to Arbitral proceedings as well as the Arbitration Award.Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and C. Nagappan, allowing the appeal against the High Court judgment, also held that Section 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is specifically restricted to treat the Award as a decree of a Court and does not equate Arbitration proceedings with court proceedings. BACKGROUND The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act took a view that the counter claim in an Ar

No official can put forth a claim that breach of trust is connected with his official duty,the Apex court bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh has observed in Punjab State Warehousing Corp. vs. Bhushan Chander while allowing an appeal by setting aside a judgment by the High Court wherein it had held that when other offences are interlinked with an offence under Section 409 IPC sanction under Section 197 IPC for launching the prosecution for the offence under Section 409 IPC is a condition precedent. The Apex Court said that such an approach is absolutely fallacious. The Court also referred to Apex Court decision in Md. Hadi Raja vs. State of Bihar wherein it was held that protection by way of sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not applicable to the officers of Government Companies or the public undertakings even when such public undertakings are ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution on account of deep and pervasive control of the governm

In a landmark judgment, Gujarat high court has ruled that the government's norms for retirement for employees do not apply to minority-run educational institutions. Such institutes can engage the services of its employees beyond the age of superannuation, which is 60 years, till the employees are mentally and physically fit. The only requirement is that employees must have this certified by medical authorities. Justice J B Pardiwala restrained the state government from any interference and observed that it must continue to pay grants towards salaries of such senior employees, that the institute feels can serve the best interests of students and the community. The high court said that the grant-in code cannot prevail over regulations for running minority institutions. If the government interferes in selection, taking action or making the staff - both teaching and non-teaching - retire, it is in clear violation of Article 30(1) of the Constitution, which protects and confers auton

In a judgment that will bring cheer to ship owners, the Bombay high court has said that a ship cannot be barred from sailing off merely because its cargo has been detained by a court order in a dispute between two other entities. Coming to the aid of Vietnam-registered MV Ocean 39, the HC on Monday said the company that sought attachment of its cargo must offload it and store it elsewhere by June 29 at its own cost. Justice SJ Kathwalla passed the judgment in a plea made by Hoang Anh Shipping JSC to let its ship set sail immediately from Tuticorin port and harbour where it has been docked since March 15. A court had passed an ex-parte arrest order to detain nearly 4,700 tonnes of sand and cement on board, after Cupid Shipping, a Singapore-based company, approached it against a Maldives-based company, Blue Metal Investments Pvt Ltd. Cupid wanted the cargo attached as additional security in a dispute it had with Blue Metal. Cupid had neither sought nor got the ship arrested. Three mon

A hiba of an undivided share in property which is capable of division is invalid. Exceptions to the rule are: where the gift is made by one co-heir to the other; where the gift is of share in a zamindari or taluka; where gift is of a share in freehold property in a large commercial town, and where gift is of share in a land company. While gift of immovable property is not complete unless the donor parts with the possession and donee enters into possession but if the property is in occupation of tenants, gift can be completed by delivery of title deed or by request to tenants to attorn to the donee or by mutation. Gift of property which is capable of division is irregular but can be perfected and rendered valid by subsequent partition or delivery. [Khursida Begum v. Mohd. Farooq, (2016) 4 SCC 549]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 154 — Delay in lodging/filing FIR — Explanation by prosecution for — Need of: Delay in setting law into motion by lodging of complaint and registration of FIR is normally viewed by courts with suspicion because there is possibility of concoction and embellishment of the occurrence. So it becomes necessary for prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay. Object of insisting upon a prompt lodging of report, is to obtain early information not only regarding assailants but also about part played by accused, nature of incident and names of witnesses. [Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC 604]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 301 and 300 Firstly [S. 302 or S. 304 Pt. I] — Transfer of malice: Conviction and sentence passed by trial court under S. 302 IPC, restored as High Court in converting conviction from S. 302 to S. 304 Pt. I has failed to take into consideration doctrine of transfer of malice as provided in S. 301 IPC. Intention on the part of respondent-accused in causing bodily injury as is likely to cause death was not a disputed fact. It cannot be believed that respondent did not know about likelihood of causing death, though, he may not know as to whom he is causing bodily harm, but his act clearly attracts ingredients of S. 300 IPC. [State of Rajasthan v. Ram Kailash, (2016) 4 SCC 590]

Penal Code, 1860 — Ss. 302 and 323 r/w S. 34 — Murder — Dying declaration — Reliability: A valid dying declaration may be made without obtaining a certificate of fitness of declarant by a medical officer. [Gulzari Lal v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 583]

Supreme Court: While construing the provisions of Hindu Law Women’s Rights Act, 1933, the Court held that the succession to a Hindu male dying intestate will vest only in the widow under Section 4(1)(ii) to the exclusion of the daughters.  In the present case, two brother and the wife of elder brother constituted a joint Hindu family. The elder brother was the Karta of the said family. Both the brothers had partition and divided their joint family properties. The younger brother died intestate, leaving behind his widow and three daughters. Later, the widow executed a will bequeathing her share in the joint family property in favour of only one of the three daughters. One of the daughters filed a suit claiming her 1/4th share in the property as per Section 10(2)(g) of the 1933 Act. Shri S.N. Bhat, learned counsel of the respondent, also invited the attention of the Court to Section 8(1)(d) of the Act and according to him since joint family property passed to younger brother who was a

Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the revision petition filed against the order of the Addition Sessions Judge, the Court said that it is duty of the lawyer to make a balance between client’s interest and administration of justice The Petitioner had preferred an application under Section 311 of Criminal Procedure Code (Power to summon material witness, or examine present person) to recall a witness in a rape case on the ground that the accused was not given an opportunity to take cross examination of three witnesses. The Trial Court dismissed the application on the ground that the witnesses were already cross-examined and the power under Section 311 could not be used to harass a witness in a rape case. In the Revision Petition, the Council was asked to place on record the questions he wanted to ask the witnesses. Repeated adjournments were sought by the Petitioner, but still he did not place the document before the Court. The State Council, Mr. S.K. Yadav, submitted tha

Andhra Pradesh High Court: While dealing with the question relating to grant of Arms license, the Court quashed the order of State Government of rejecting the application of Petitioner for grant of Arms License. The Petitioner in this case had filed an application before the Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad Commissionerate which was rejected. The State Government also rejected the application in its appeal phase. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order is highly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. But the learned Government Pleader vehemently contended that the impugned rejection order is in accordance with the provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. The bench comprising of A. V. Sesha Sai J minutely studied various sections of The Arms Act and analyzed that the  intention of the legislature is that the licensing authori

The case before the bench comprising of A.K. Sikri & R.K Agarwal,JJ was whether the Court of Sessions is empowered to take the cognizance of offence when a similar application to this effect was rejected by the Judicial Magistrate while committing the case to Sessions Court, taking cognizance of offence only under Section 306 IPC and specifically refusing to take cognizance of offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. The Court observed that normally, such a course of action would not be permissible. But referring to the present case, the court held that the power of Magistrate in refusing to take cognizance against the appellants is revisable by a superior Court, the Court of Sessions in this case, either on the revision petition that can be filed by the aggrieved party or even suo moto by the revisional Court itself. Also, it was not a case wherein the opportunity was not given to the other party to file a reply at the sessions Court against the order of Cognizance and the Cou

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that an estranged wife capable of earning is also entitled to maintenance. The ruling came in a case where the husband claimed the wife was not entitled to maintenance as she was capable of earning. Justice Daya Chaudhary ruled that it was neither stated in the reply nor argued on the husband’s behalf that the respondent wife was earning. It was simply stated that the respondent wife possessed professional qualifications and could earn her livelihood. As such, directions by a Chief Judicial Magistrate to the husband for paying interim maintenance could not be faulted with. The petitioner husband had earlier moved the court against the grant of maintenance to the respondent wife primarily on the ground that it was on the higher side and the respondent wife being professionally qualified was in a position to earn her livelihood. Justice Chaudhary referred to Section 125 of the CrPC on maintenance of wives, children and parents, which

The Vacation Bench of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs Aswini Kumar Mahato has held that an order of cut in pension was permissible after a person reached the age of superannuation. The Bench comprising of Justices A.K.Goel and A.M.Khanwilkar has allowed the Appeal filed by State of West Bengal against a Calcutta High Court order in which it was held that once an employee is allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, the concerned authority has no jurisdiction to pass an order in a disciplinary proceeding since the master-servant relationship cannot exist after retirement. It is argued on behalf of the state that under Rule 10(1) of the West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971 pension can be withheld if either any pecuniary loss was caused by the concerned employee or the employee is found to be guilty of misconduct or negligence while in service. This, of course, is subject to the conditions contained in the proviso to Rule 10(1) of th

In ANJAN BISWAS vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHER, the petitioner’s submission was that either a public employer not lodge a criminal complaint against an employee who is perceived to have committed a criminal offence and against whom a departmental action is  initiated; or, if a criminal complaint is lodged in respect of the same matters, the departmental action has to be suspended till the criminal trial is concluded. In reply while dismissing the Writ petition, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided that - ........ 24. The life of law may be experience and not logic, but that does not imply that the law is illogical or asinine. That criminal matters are not disposed of in a hurry in this country is a matter of public knowledge and has been judicially recognised for decades. Notwithstanding the present fashion of even questioning the obvious and irrefutable by taking advantage of the rules of evidence, the judicial system cannot be mocked by suggesting the absurd. While a

Contrary to the practice of handing over minor children to their parents, the Madras High Court Bench here has denied custody of a 17-year-old boy to his father as it finds him mentally mature to take a decision of not wanting to reside with his father. A Division Bench of Justices K.K. Sasidharan and B. Gokuldas passed the order while disposing of a Habeas Corpus petition filed by S. Sreenivasan (name changed) of Bodinayakanur in Theni district. The petitioner had accused two individuals of keeping his son in illegal custody and sought a direction to the police to rescue him. Following interim orders passed by the court on the HCP, the Inspector of Bodi taluk police station produced the minor before the court. When the judges examined him, the boy told them that he had left his parental home following a dispute with his father and that he was not interested in going back. He said he was staying with his sister at Karattupatti and denied the allegation of being in illegal custody.

In a contractual master-servant relationship, no employee can assert a right to withdraw his resignation, especially after it had been accepted by the competent authority, on any ground, much less the ground of having tendered the resignation in frustration and under depression, the Madras High Court has ruled. A Division Bench of the High Court gave the ruling while dismissing a writ petition filed by a lower court employee who claimed to have resigned from the post of office assistant because he was made to perform domestic chores such as cleaning toilets even on holidays at the residence of a Chief Judicial Magistrate. Writing the judgment, Justice M. Venugopal said: “The term ‘resignation’ means the act of giving up or relinquishing office. A resignation must be unconditional and one with the intent to operate as such... In law, an employee has no locus poenitentiae (right to withdraw) to withdraw an offer of resignation after it was accepted. He also pointed out that the res

Bombay High Court has recently acquitted an Accused who challenged his conviction under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code [Subhash Purandas Pawar vs State Of Maharashtra]. Originally he was charged with the Offences under Sections 306 IPC and 498A. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- for S.498A. He was acquitted of offence under Section 306 of IPC . The Prosecution Case was that the Accused’s wife committed suicide because of his Cruelty with a view to coerce her to meet unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/-. The trial Court considered the evidence which was brought and recorded findings that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim had committed suicide or that the accused had abetted the committing of suicide by the victim. It also held that it was not proved that the Victim was subjected to cruelty of such a nature which would drive her to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to herself. The trial Court, however, held

The district consumer court has ruled that an insurance company cannot repudiate claim for damages if the driver of the insured vehicle has, in any way, not contributed to the accident involving the vehicle. The consumer court imposed a cost of Rs 5,000 on New India Assurance Company and directed it to reimburse a city-based lawyer Rs 40,897 as car repair charges after her vehicle was involved in an accident on Lal Bahadur Shastri road on March 7, 2013. A speeding tempo had dashed against the car, resulting in the driver momentarily losing control over the steering wheel and crashing into a road divider. Manasi Joshi, the complainant, had filed a Rs40,897 claim for damages suffered by her car. The insurance company rejected Joshi's claim on May 5, 2013, arguing that the car was being driven by her husband who did not posses a valid driver's license. Later, she filed a consumer complaint seeking the court's directions to the insurance company for reimbursement of her insu

The Calcutta High Court, in Indian Oil Officers’ Association vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, has held that an Association has a clear right to maintain this writ application on behalf of its members. Justice I.P. Mukerji referring to various Apex Court decisions, also observed that body corporate may not only sue or be sued for violation of Article 19 but it may also sue for violation of Article 14 or any other law. This observation was made in a Writ petition preferred by a registered Trade Union against IOC challenging a Memorandum of Understanding purportedly entered into by six members of this Association with the Corporation. It is argued IOC that “the writ was by the Association. It primarily complained of the infringement of fundamental rights by the Corporation under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19 conferred those rights on citizens only. He cited The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. the State of Bihar and others, The Automobile Products of India

Courts can entertain petitions to recall non-bailable arrest warrants (NBWs) without insisting on the presence of people against whom they had been issued, but it does not mean the practice should be followed invariably in all cases irrespective of the conduct of the person concerned, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice S. Vimala made the observation while rejecting the plea of Shanmugapandian, an accused in a criminal case, to direct the Valliyoor Judicial Magistrate in Tirunelveli district to recall an NBW without insisting upon his appearance. The judge said the Magistrate could at most be directed to consider the plea for recall of warrant right on the day when the petitioner surrenders. She pointed out that the Magistrate was constrained to issue the arrest warrant not only because the petitioner did not appear in the court on a particular day but also because he failed to file an application either under Section 317 or Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Proc

The Supreme Court of India has held in a recent judgment Mainuddin Abdul Sattar Shaikh vs. Vijay D Salvi (Criminal Appeal No. 1472 of 2009), that the accused in a proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be made liable there under even if the Company had not been named in the notice or the complaint, as on facts it held that there was no necessity for the complainant to prove that the said accused was in charge of the affairs of the company, by virtue of the position he held. The Court drew and applied the analogy from the proposition of law laid down in P.J. Agro Tech Limited and Ors.  Vs. Water Base Limited [(2010) 12 SCC 146] that ‘where the cheque is drawn by the employee of the appellant company on his personal account, even if it be for discharging dues of the appellant-company and its Directors, the appellant-company and its Directors cannot be made liable under Section 138’ The aforesaid ruling of the Apex Court came in the following fact situation : I

Gujarat High Court has recently held that the contention that when a signed blank cheque leaf  is handed over, it can never be filled up and that if it is filled up it would  amount to a material alteration within the meaning of using Section 87 of the   N.I.  Act, does not stand to rhyme or reason. The Court said that it would depend upon the facts of each case. Justice J.B.Pardiwala has allowed a batch of Petitions seeking quashment of Criminal Proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act. He has framed the following questions relating to blank cheques (i) Whether Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies to a cheque as well? (ii) Whether filling up of a signed blank cheque leaf would amount to a material alteration within the meaning of Section 87 of the N.I. Act? (iii) Is there an implied authority to a person who receives a signed blank cheque leaf to fill up the same showing any amount  as he likes? Answering the questions, the Court held as follows; “It can be argued that

The Madras High Court Bench here has held that Regional Passport Officers must adhere to principles of natural justice before impounding passports though the Passport Act, 1967 does not contain an expression provision to follow Audi Alteram Partem (a Latin phrase that means that the other side should be heard as well before taking a decision). Justice M. Venugopal passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by S. Joseph Nuson of Tirunelveli serving as a Bosun, also known as Boatswain, with an Iranian company. The petitioner was aggrieved against impounding of his passport by the Regional Passport Officer here by citing the pendency of a criminal case before Koodankulam police. According to the petitioner, he had come to his hometown on vacation in May last when a quarrel erupted between one Prabhu and Milton over the Koodankulam Nuclear Power Project issue. The quarrel ended up in violence with Prabhu using a sword to hack Milton. Then, he and other villagers present on t

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). The Court referring to Apex Court decisions in Singh Enterprises v. CCE, Jamshedpur reported in 2008 (221) ELT 163 (SC), Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise v. Hongo India (P) Ltd., reported in 2009 (236) ELT 417 (SC), Chhattisgarh State Electricity Board v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission reported in 2010 (5) SCC 23, observed that it is well settled that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be applied, beyond the condonable period. The Court obser

The High Court of Kerala, has held that only a husband can be an aggrieved person to file a complaint of adultery. The court was considering the plea of the revision petitioner who stood convicted on concurrent findings of two courts below for the offence of adultery. The material facts would show that, the revision petitioner developed sexual intimacy with the wife of the defacto complainant. Though he was reprimanded by the defacto complainant, he turned a deaf ear to the same. The defacto complaint thereafter obtained divorce from his wife. He subsequently filed a complaint against the revision petitioner for offence of adultery. Upholding the contentions of the revision petitioner, that a former husband cannot be an aggrieved person for an offence of adultery, the court observed that entire proceedings meted out against the petitioner was not to redress the grievance of the de facto complainant , but with an intention to harass his eschewed wife. Allowing the revision petition an

Delhi High Court has held in State v Hargyan that acceptance of an incomplete charge sheet and denying statutory bail (167(2) CrPC] to the accused amounted to apparent abuse of process of Law. The accused was alleged of committing misappropriation of funds in ATM accounts, wherein he was acting as custodian. The police filed final report before the magistrate court. The court below, returning the charge sheet, directed further investigation into certain aspects .The accused applied for statutory bail before the magistrate court which was rejected.His revision before the sessions judge was allowed, granting statutory bail. Aggrieved by the same,state filed the above criminal revision petition. Dismissing the petition, Justice P.S .Teji, observed:-“Section 167(2) Cr. P.C. precludes the concerned Magistrate to have the custody of the detenue beyond 60 days until he receives the charge sheet under Section 173 Cr. P.C. to adjudicate upon the same.” The court noted that in the instant case,

Calcutta High Court has directed Judicial Magistrates of the State to ensure that order for investigation U/S 156(3) CrPC reaches concerned Police stations forthwith, without delay, to avoid inordinate in starting police investigation. Justices Sankar Acharyya and Aniruddha Bose made this observation while dismissing acriminal appeal filed by a person convicted for rape. The bench observed “At the very outset we feel it necessary for administration of criminal justice system in the State and to prevent abuse of process of Courts by exercise of our power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section 482 of the CrPC. to point out an irregularity which is apparent in this case. It comes to our notice that the petition of complaint was lodged by PW 1 in Court on 4.11.2006 which was forwarded to O.C. of police station for treating it as FIR under Section (3), CrPC. but it was received at police station on 11.12.2006 which is after one month and one week of lodging the com

The high court of Bombay at Goa has held that a trial court cannot direct framing of charges against an accused for abetment to commit suicide and alternatively for murder. The order comes in the case of an accused arrested for allegedly being responsible for the death of a youth at Valpoi in 2014. Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/goa/HC-Cant-frame-same-person-for-murder-and-suicide-abetment/articleshow/52719326.cms

Allahabad High Court, coming down heavily on Police officers for illegally confining a lady for fifteen days, in the garb of investigation against her husband in the complaint filed by her parents accusing him of kidnapping her, has observed that practice of taking witness in custody for recording her statement under Section 164 CrPC is not contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/confinement-witnesses-purpose-investigation-crime-illegal-allahabad-hc/

Allahabad High Court has held that, in view of the prohibition contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure even the High Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 CrP.C has no authority or jurisdiction to alter/review a Judgment in a Criminal Case, after the Judgement is signed. Relying on the Supreme Court Judgment in Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal, 1981 (1) SCC 500, the Court held that the prohibition in Section 362 CrPC against the court altering or reviewing its judgment, is subject to what is “otherwise provided by this code or by any other law for the time being in force”. These words, however, refer to those provisions only where the Court has been expressly authorized by the code or other law to alter or review its judgement. The inherent power of the court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in Section 362 CrPC and, therefore, the attempt to invoke that power can be of no avail. “Thus, the law on the issue can be summarized to the ef