Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court referred to Govind Sakharam Ubhe v. State of Maharashtra, 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 770, wherein it was held that the charge under MCOCA ropes in a person who as a member of the syndicate commits organised crime either individually or jointly.
The Court noted that cognizance of the offence was not taken by the Trial Court as stipulated by Section 2(d) of the MCOCA, therefore, the accused persons could not be prosecuted on the charges of S. 3 MCOCA.
Delhi High Court observed that at the stage of bail, the mini trial is totally prohibited. However, the record amply indicates that Leena Paulse was involved in the organized crime syndicate. It is unbelievable that such huge amount of money were coming in her account and she was accepting the same only as a dutiful wife.
The Supreme Court also held that the dictum as laid by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Shiva alias Shivaji Ramaji Sonawane, (2015) 14 SCC 272 is the correct exposition of law and does not require any relook.
“A difference in the seniority of a particular officer is not the same as a difference in their ranks.”
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising B.R. Gavai and Hima Kohli, JJ., (Vacation Bench) reversed the order of the Gujarat High Court,
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah* and Sanjiv Khanna, JJ has set aside the Bombay High Court order releasing a man
by Abhishek Goyal*
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao, JJ defined the scope of the words ‘competent Court’ in Section
Bombay High Court: While relying upon the Supreme Court decision in Atul Manubhai Parekh v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2010) 1 SCC 603,