Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“An ordinary Investigating Officer or a conventional Investigating Officer would not be so equipped with such emerging crimes to decode the labyrinth of cybercrimes”.
The Ordinance has taken birth from the womb of social justice, and it nowhere depicts arbitrariness.
“It is the application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such application of mind.”
The Court said that it is not understandable that how if someone shouts ‘Jai Sriram’ it would outrage the religious feeling of any class especially when the complainant himself states that Hindu — Muslims are living in harmony in the area the incident by no stretch of imagination can result in antimony.
The Court further stated that power of the Courts either competent Civil Court or Constitutional Court cannot be permitted to be usurped by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India, as was done in the instant case.
Upholding the order, the Court stated that the Governor in the normal circumstance has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as obtaining under Article 163 of the Constitution, but can take independent decision in exceptional circumstances and opined that the instant case was one such exception.
The Court strictly observed that the offence against the petitioner is a shade more than horrendous. “More than horrendous, I say, for the reason that the petitioner is a teacher (…) If this cannot become a crime, it is not understandable as to what else can be”.
The police had initially charged the elected members under S. 304 of IPC; however, the Court upon prima-facie finding of negligence, quashed the charge under S. 304, IPC and charged the petitioners under S. 304-A, IPC.
Giving the Government 8 weeks’ time to frame such guidelines, the Court laid down certain steps that must be followed whenever a person is to be summoned under S. 35, BNSS.
The Court in the impugned order had held that the petitioner watched a pornographic site, which would not become publishing or transmitting material as necessary under S. 67-B(a) and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioner.