Delhi Court observed that in the absence of any evidence to link the accused persons with contraband recovered in Australia, the bar of section 37 NDPS Act stands lifted.
The onus lies on the prosecution to prove that the sample of the contraband seized during investigation proceedings is the same which was forwarded to CFSL for examination and that there is no tampering of the same.
Dhanbad POCSO Court said that allegation of informant based on an inquiry in a secret manner that rape, and unnatural offence has been committed against victim child could not be established and prosecution’s case against the accused persons remains doubtful.
Strange state of affairs; Neither investigating authority prepared rough map nor Trial Court took pain in recording correct directions for want of evidence
It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant helped other Chinese nationals who were responsible for building the loan app and facilitating the opening of bank accounts of non-existent companies for the transfer of duped money.
Allahabad High Court reiterated that the dying declaration recorded by a police officer, can be acted upon if the same is found to be true, coherent, consistent, and free from any effort to prompt the deceased to make such a statement.
The scope of a challenge under Section 34 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to the grounds stipulated in Section 34 Arbitration Act.
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.
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