A Huge number of valuables including gold and silver bricks were recovered at Sanjay Popli’s home during investigation. Thus, the Punjab and Haryana High Court found it unsafe to release him at this stage while investigation is still underway for another case pertaining to accumulation of disproportionate assets.
The observation of the Supreme Court came in a case where the deposition of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in English language though she had deposed in her vernacular language.
Supreme Court held that the charge that the convicts had committed murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; hence, they were and are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Thus, it set aside the Trial Court and Allahabad High Court's judgment and order and acquitted the convicts.
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
NIA has not done an investigation with respect to the co-conspirators involved in planting gelatin sticks in the Scorpio vehicle. We hope and trust that NIA, in right earnest, will investigate this aspect since further investigation under Section 173(8) is pending.
Delhi High Court: In a bail application filed by the accused, Kapil Taneja, seeking bail for alleged offences under Sections 419, 420,
Allahabad High Court said that the Trial Court has erred in scrutinising and analysing the evidence on record and the finding in respect of the guilt of convict is perverse and not according to the law. Therefore, it granted benefit of doubt to the convict on the ground of rule of caution.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by the husband challenging on the ground of legitimacy of the child born out of
Allahabad High Court observed that Section 201 IPC looks upon a person giving false information with intent to screen an offender as an accessory after the fact and makes him culpable as an offender committing an offence against public justice. It partly allowed the appeal against conviction under Section 201 IPC, but upheld the conviction for murder.
It is travesty of justice that an institution contributing for noble cause being that of running a charitable hospital on a public land and providing for sound research and treatment facilities has been made to suffer the rigors of cancellation of the Lease Deed and vacation of the property. Being a constitutional court and the conscience-keeper of the democracy, this Court cannot lend a blind eye when the ends of justice are being bulldozed in broad daylight.
Delhi High Court: In an appeal challenging the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge convicting the Father (Appellant) under
Delhi High Court: In an appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction passed by the Trial Court
Bombay High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the FIR for
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail, the Bench of Rajendra Badamikar, J., observed that google
Bombay High Court: In an appeal filed by wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 22-11-2005, passed by the Family
by Jai Anant Dehadrai† and Udipto Koushik Sarmah††
Bombay High Court : In an appeal filed questioning the legality of Judgment and convicting both Appellants i.e. a father
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: In a case wherein it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under
Karnataka High Court: While deliberating over the instant petition seeking termination of proceedings under the provisions of the POCSO Act,
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has explained that to be ‘substantial’, a question of law must