Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Without mincing any words, the Court stated that the accused had miserably failed to get himself discharged when he had filed the application under S. 227 CrPC; still however, he filed another vexatious application seeking modification of charge under Section 216 of CrPC to derail the criminal proceedings.
Supreme Court said that AICTE itself never claimed that it was dishonestly induced to grant such approvals and that essential link is altogether missing, whereby any such criminal charge of cheating can be sustained against the accused persons.
Supreme Court permitted the appellant to examine the prosecution witness as defense witness and kept it open for the prosecution to cross-examine the said witness.
“The service rule of petitioner being a Judicial Officer is covered by Tripura Judicial Service Rules, 2003 and the ambit of Article 311 of the Constitution pertains to permanent employees and not probationer Judicial Officer.”
The issue under consideration is whether the result of a polygraph test can become ground of discharge of an accused at stage of charge and could the learned Judge while passing order on application for grant of anticipatory bail, pass an order suggesting to the IO to conduct polygraph test of accused and victim to ascertain the truth of the matter without there being a prayer by accused or prosecution.
“The expression “discharge” is of wide import, and it would include “discharge on conclusion of the contractual period”.”
Delhi Court observed that as per the series of events, the accused was made a scapegoat in case things did not work out as planned.
Kerala High Court: In a petition challenging the order dismissing the application filed under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Armed Forces Tribunal (Chandigarh Bench): The Bench of Justice Dharam Chand Chaudhary (Member J) and Vice Admiral HCS Bisht (Member A), granted