Question: Does a police officer, conducting investigation in a cognizable offence, have power to summon, for appearing before him, a witness under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C., who is residing in a different district or is in a different state, or simply who is an outside witness?
Question: Can statements recorded during investigation by police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. be used in a civil proceeding for purposes of cross-examination under Section 145 of the Evidence Act?
I. Preface: According to Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the term ‘service’ means service of any description which is made available to potential users and includes, but not limited to the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Thus, the definition of the term ‘service’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not only broad and elastic but is rather extensive and far-reaching. Deliberating upon the concept of ‘deficiency in service’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of: Consumer Unity and Trust Society v. Bank of Baroda, (1997) 2 Comp LJ 192 (SC), held that, ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
Premenstrual Stress Syndrome and Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Can defence of insanity be claimed by a female suffering from premenstrual stress syndrome?
In the matter of: Kumari Chandra V/s State of Rajasthan, D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 44/1987, High Court of Rajasthan, Date of Decision: 01.08.2018 (Coram: Goverdhan Bardhar & Mohammad Rafiq, JJ.) it was held that:
This is one thing where I honestly wish I am proven completely wrong in the coming days. Because, to say the least – it is shocking. It is sad that such a crap has been passed by the Parliament in order to drastically amend the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Yes, you are reading it right. I am really shocked that the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill has finally been passed by the Parliament (on 24 July 2018).
The Supreme Court of India comprising a bench of Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel and Justice Ashok Bhushan in the case of Union of India v. Ram Lakhan Sharma (Civil Appeal 2608 of 2012 and other tagged matters) has held that the order of the Disciplinary Authority of the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the CRPF) dismissing the Respondents is violative of the Principles of Natural Justice as the inquiry officer cannot be a presiding officer in a departmental inquiry and thereby upheld the order of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court which ordered for a fresh Departmental Proceedings.
The Supreme Court of India comprising a bench of Justice A.K Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan in the case of Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda (Criminal Appeal No. 802 of 2018) has held that a mere denial of the existence of debt by the accused is not sufficient to acquit the accused and that under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, there is a presumption that the accused had issued the cheque for the discharge of some debt or liability and if the accused leads on evidence for his defense rebutting this presumption, then he can be convicted.
The Supreme Court of India comprising a bench of Justice Abhay Mohan Sapre and Justice S. Abdul Nazeer in the case of Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad and Ors. (Civil appeal 5415 of 2011) has held that a property inherited from father, father’s father, father’s father’s father and so on is an ancestral property and the exchange of such a property between two sons (who have inherited the property from their father) will not be valid unless it is registered.
The Supreme Court of India comprising a bench of Justice A.K. Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan interpreted the term “corporation established by or under a Central, State or Provincial Act” in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Kanpur and Anr v. Canara bank (Civil Appeal No. 6020 of 2018) and held that the NOIDA (New Okhla Industrial Development Authority) has been constituted by the Act.
I. Preface:
In one of the most primitive decision on the subject, namely, Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Loog, (1880) 18 Ch D 395: (1882) 8 App Cas 15 (HL), James, L.J. deliberating on the principle underlying the trade mark law observed that:
‘DOG LAW’ ANALYSIS OF THE POWER OF THE COURT TO CAUSE REVIEW OF ITS DECISION: INDIA
A conjoint reading of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 makes it crystal clear that court may allow review petition only on the following three grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the review-petitioner or could not be produced by the review-petitioner at the time when the decree/order/judgment was passed or made; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient (cogent) reason. In the matter of D.R. Somayajulu & Ors v. Attili Appala Swamy & Anr, (2015) SCCR 254, it was held that an application for review on the ground of discovery of new material facts should be considered with great caution and should not be granted on a mere asking. A review petition can be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. A review petition must be accompanied by a certificate of the lawyer that the review petition is justified.
Provision of Law:
Order VI, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 reads as under:
“Amendment of Pleadings- The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties:
Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.”
The Gauhati High Court comprising a division Bench of Chief Justice Ajit Singh and Justice Manojit Bhuyan has held in Mintu Hasda and Anr. v. The State of Assam and Anr. that extra judicial confessions made before the police in its custody is not an admissible piece of evidence and acquitted the appellants who was convicted for murder by the Trial Court.
What will be your reaction if the CBI Director, after his retirement, joins Reliance or some other company which was being subjected to investigation by CBI? In fact, I remember, way back in 1989, when the son of the then CBI Director was alleged to have business dealings with Reliance, it had caused a lot of uproar in the media.
It is not happening for the first time that officers at senior level would be appointed from outside the Government.
Dr. Manmohan Singh was appointed as Secretary in the Finance Ministry in 1976 by the Congress Government headed by Indira Gandhi, while he was not in IAS.
I am writing this from the point of view of an advocate, and that too, an advocate who is practicing criminal law. To appreciate the answer to this question, one should first understand certain basic legal provisions.
Question: On the basis of my complaint, the Magistrate has directed the police to investigate a case under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Initially, the police investigated it for about 15 days, but the investigating officer is now openly siding with the accused person and is saying that he would be closing the investigation and sending a closure report. It is clear that the I.O. is favouring the accused person for some obvious reasons. What can I do in these circumstances?
Question: I have filed a petition in the high court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the criminal proceedings. Now, already one year has passed but the high court is not deciding this petition. Only dates after dates are being given. Sometimes, the matter is not even heard by high court on the date given. I am facing hardships and mental tension due to this case. It is leading to health problems as well as financial problems since I am not able to do my work properly. I want to file SLP in the Supreme Court against this delay by the high court. Please advise me.
Question: I had filed a complaint with police station, following which an FIR was registered by police. However, after 3 months, now somebody told me that the police has closed the investigation in this FIR without even informing me, i.e., the complainant. The police is refusing to divulge information about status of investigation in the FIR. What should I do?
Question: In a case of culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC, trial is going on. As an interim order, the high court has granted a favourable interim order to the accused. I am a relative of the deceased who was killed in the above offence. Can I file SLP in the Supreme Court against such order of the high court?
