26 May, 2016

All India Bar Examination - AIBE 9 result declared on 21 May 2016 - allindiabarexamination.com

Timeline Updates for AIBE :


Notification on AIBE IX Result (22nd May, 2016)
The AIBE 9 exam took place on 6th March 2016 throughout India, except few centres. Result for AIBE-IX  declared on 21st May, 2016. Check it here -http://aibe9.allindiabarexamination.com/result.aspx

Notification on AIBE IX Result (8th March, 2016)
The AIBE 9 exam took place on 6th March 2016 throughout India, except few centres. Result for AIBE-IX would be declared on 21st May, 2016.

Registration Date of AIBE-VII (25th July, 2014)
( Notification No: AIBE/WS/037)
“The Council has considered the request of the candidates and has extended the registration date from 25th July 2014 to 13th August 2014 , however the examination date remains the same i.e 7th September 2014. The last date for making the payment is 14th August 2014. Please check the new date schedule. "

Notification on AIBE VII Dates (15th March, 2014)
All India Bar Examination-VII is likely to be held on 29th june, 2014. Result for AIBE-VI has been published.

Notification on AIBE VI Result (25th February, 2014)
The AIBE 6 result was to be announced today at 6:00 pm. But due to some undisclosed circumstances, the result has been postponed and have been promised to be made available on 28th February. Good luck to all candidates who appeared for AIBE 6 exam. Check it here - http://www.allindiabarexamination.com/aibe6_result.aspx

Notification on AIBE VI Result (21st February, 2014)
The AIBE 6 exam took place on 19th January throughout India, except few centres. Result for AIBE-VI would be declared on 25th February, 2014.

AIBE-V Result 2013, Exam Date, Admit Card & Syllabus Details - All India Bar Examination 14 July, 2013Notification on AIBE VI Exam (10th November, 2013)
The AIBE 6 exam has been rescheduled to 19th January 2014. The last date for challan payment at SBI has also been extended till 13th December 2013.

Notification on AIBE VI Registration (30th September, 2013)
Online Registration for AIBE 6 Examination shall commence from 5th of October, 2013.

Notification on AIBE V Result 2013 (30th September, 2013)
All India Bar Examination declared the AIBE 5 Examination Result 2013 on its official website www.allindiabarexamination.com today,

Read full Judgment »

26 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 7

Major Son can claim Maintenance from his Father for Studies

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Surya Kant, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 62195-M of 2006. D/d. 30.01.2008.

Nikhil Kumar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
Ramesh Kumar Mahajan - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Shri S.D. Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Bindu Goel, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Naveen Malik, Advocate.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

ORDER

Surya Kant, J. - On the oral prayer made by Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Neelam Kumari, mother of the petitioner and wife of the respondent - Shri Ramesh Kumar Mahajan, working as an Assistant in the office of Haryana Police Housing Corporation, Panchkula, is ordered to be impleaded as petitioner No. 2. Ms. Bindu Goel, Learned Counsel, accepts notice on her behalf. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the memo of parties.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

24 May, 2016

10 years Imprisonment for filing a false Gang Rape Complaint

The court of Tikamgarh district of Madhya Pradesh have pronounced 10 years of imprisonment to a woman on being found guilty for filing a false gang rape complaint in the police station. Additional Sessions Judge Sh.Upendra Singh found accused woman Savitri guilty who vehicle a resident of Jtara Police station area.

10 years Imprisonment for filing a false Gang Rape Complaint

Read full Judgment »

24 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 9

23 May, 2016

Wife not allowing her husband to have Sexual intercourse - It is Cruelty - Husband entitled to Divorce - Sex is foundation of Marriage

DELHI HIGH COURT

Before :- Kailash Gambhir, J.
F.A.O. No. 185 of 2001. D/d. 21.3.2012.

Smt. Shashi Bala - appellant.
Versus
Shri Rajiv Arora - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Mr. Atul Bandhu, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. R.G. Srivastava, Advocate.
Delhi High Court, Delhi Judgments
JUDGMENT

Kailash Gambhir, J. - By this appeal filed under section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the appellant seeks to challenge the impugned order and decree dated 12.2.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court whereby a decree of divorce in favour of the respondent husband under Section 13(i)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act was granted and the counter claim filed by the appellant seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act was dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for deciding the present appeal is that the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 17.2.1991 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.

Read full Judgment »

23 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

There is a likelihood of an Advocate becoming a judge in future - Therefore, direction issued to Bar Council not to enroll any Law Graduate with pending criminal cases except ..

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Madurai Bench)

Before :- N. Kirubakaran, J.
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 14573 of 2014. D/d. 6.10.2015.

S.M. Anantha Murugan - Petitioner
Versus
Chairman, Bar Council of India, New Delhi - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- J. Lawrence, Saji Chellan and V. Ramesh, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 :- M. Subashbabu, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2 :- S.Y. Masood, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 :- P. Kandasamy, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
For the Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 :- G.R. Swaminathan, Additional Solicitor General.
For the Respondent No. 10 :- K. Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General.
For the Respondent No. 11 :- S.S. Sundar, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 12 :- K. Srinivasa, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 13 :- Su. Srinivasan, Assistant Solicitor General of India.
For the Respondent :- K.K. Ramakrishnan, Advocate as Amicus Curiae.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Madras High Court Judgments

Cases Referred :
A.M. Mathur v. Promod Kumar Gupta, 1990 (2) SCC 533.
Asif Hameed v. State of Jammu & Kashmir,

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

22 May, 2016

Murder of Former Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi by Human Bomb

Murder of Former Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi by Human Bomb Nalini
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

K.T. Thomas, D.P. Wadhwa and S.S.M. Quadri, JJ.
Death Ref. No. 1 of 1998 (arising out of D. No. 1151 of 1998) with Crl. Appeal No. 321 of 1998 with Crl. Appeal No. 322 of 1998 with Crl. Appeal No. 323 of 1998 with Crl. Appeal No. 324 of 1998 with Crl. Appeal No. 325 of 1998. D/d. 11.5.1999.

State of T.N. through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT - Petitioner
Versus
Nalini and others - Respondents

WITH
T. Suthenthiraraja alias Santhan and others - Appellants
Versus
State by DSP, CBI, SIT, Chennai - Respondent
WITH
P. Ravichandran and others - Appellants
Versus
State by DSP, CBI, SIT, Chennai - Respondent
WITH
Robert Payas and others - Appellants
Versus
State by DSP, CBI, SIT, Chennai - Respondent
WITH
S. Shanmugavadivelu and others - Appellants
Versus
State by DSP, CBI, SIT, Chennai - Respondent
WITH
S. Nalini and others - Appellants
Versus
State by DSP, CBI, SIT, Chennai - Respondent

For the Appearing Parties :- Altaf Ahmed, Addl.Solicitor General, N. Natarajan, S. Siva Subramaniam Sr. Advocates, Jacob Daniel, Mariaputham, Romy Chacko, S.A. Matoo, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, A.D.N. Rao, P. Parmeshwaran, N. Chandra-sekharan, S. Duraisamy, T. Ramadass, Ilamgovan, Sunder Mohan, B. Gopikrishna Jai Srilank, K. Vijaykumar, V. Rama Subramaniam, T. Raja, K. Thennan and D.K. Singh Advocates.

A. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 164, 463 - Confession - Confession was recorded in 18 pages - All the first 16 pages contain the signature of accused but the last two pages don't have the signatures - Requirement that confessional statement shall be signed by the maker has been substantially complied with despite the slip in obtaining the signatures in the last two pages - Said omission need not be countenanced since it was not shown that the omission has caused any harm to the accused - Confession of accused would be admissible ( 1988 Cri LJ 382 (Bom) and AIR 1937 Nag. 220, Overruled) - Section 15(1) of the TADA Act does not exclude the application of all the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the Evidence Act in the trial of offence under TADA Act.
[Paras 128, 129, 405, 500, 673 and 674]

B. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Confession - Where the accused in acquitted of offences under TADA, whether his confession would be admissible in trial for offences under other Acts - Held Yes. AIR SCW 3574 Overruled.
[Paras 85, 410, 668]

C. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 164 - Confession - Sufficient time was given to the accused to reflect if they wanted to make confession - Merely because confession was recorded a day or so before the police remand was to expire would not make the confession involuntary.
[Para 406]

D. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 15 - Evidence Act, 1872, Section 30 - Confession - Confession of the accused voluntary and validly made under section 15 of the TADA Act is admissible against co-accused as a substantive evidence.
[Paras 424, 418, 419, 421]

E. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 4 - Applicability - Death of former Prime Minister did not find mention in any charge under section 4 of TADA and no such question was put to any accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. - No case under section 4 of TADA could be said to be made out in the case.
[Para 542]

F. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 300 - Double jeopardy - Where former trial was for offences under TADA alongwith other offences under the Indian Penal Code, the subsequent trial for offences under TADA based on the same facts is barred - Conviction recorded in subsequent suit - Liable to be set aside.
[Para 242]

G. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, 120B - Murder - Criminal Conspiracy - Assassination of former Prime Minister - One of the main accused voluntarily making confession that she played pivotal role in the conspiracy - Evidence of witnesses and material documents corroborating the same - Conviction under Section 302 and 120B IPC upheld.
[Paras 586, 623]

H. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Death sentence - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Accused was one of the main accused persons - Without her support commission of offence was not possible - She was an educated woman - Whether the mere fact that she is a woman and a mother of the child who was born while she was in custody is a ground not to award her the death sentence - Held No.
[Paras 355, 632, and 723 to 726]

I. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Death sentence - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Accused Santhan, Murugan and Arivu prominently played direct and active role in the conspiracy - Absence of any mitigating circumstances - Death sentence upheld.
[Paras 352, 634, 635, 730]
J. Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 - Death sentence - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Accused Robert Payas, Jayakumr and Ravichandran were LTTE followers - They just obeyed commands of leaders of LTTE who had capacity to dominate over them - They were not forming hardcore nucleus which took decision to assassinate the former Prime Minister - Nor they played supervisory role in the conspiracy - Death penalty awarded against those accused altered to life imprisonment. Per. K.T. Thomas, J.; S.S.M. Quadri, J. agreeing.
[Paras 356, 729]

K. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 212 - Applicability - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Accused harboured and sheltered the main accused persons with full knowledge that they were involved in the assassination - Further, they also made efforts to destroy evidence - Rightly convicted under section 212 IPC.
[Para 585]

L. Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Sections 3, 4 - Applicability - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Prosecution failed to produce evidence to show that the accused had knowledge of conspiracy - Their knowledge about assassination acquired only after act was accomplished - Conviction under section 3(3) and 3(4) of TADA - Liable to be set aside.
[Paras 602, 618]

M. Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, Section 6(1A) - Unauthorised possession of unlicensed transmitter - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Main conspirator using transmitter (kept in the house of co-accused) for transmitting messages to foreign country - Whether all members of household can be convicted for offence under section 6(1A) of the Act - Held No - No overt act alleged against the wife of co-accused - She is held entitled to be acquitted.
[Para 602]

N. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120A - Criminal conspiracy - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Accused bought power battery for explosion of human bomb and was having knowledge that the said battery was to be used in explosion - Not necessary for a conspirator to be present at the scene of the crime to be a member of the conspiracy - Conviction for various offences upheld.
[Para 623]

O. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 212 - Harbouring offender - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Accused assisting main accused persons to evade their apprehension - Conviction upheld. Per D.P. Wadhwa, J.
[Para 612]

P. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 120A - Criminal conspiracy - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Whether the mere fact that main accused (conspirator) sent message about arrest of accused persons is sufficient to draw inference of conspiracy against them - Held No - Mere association with LTTE, hardcore militants or the fact that those militants turned out to be the persons responsible for the killing of former Prime Minister would not make them members of any conspiracy to kill the former Prime Minister. Per D.P. Wadhwa, J.
[Para 614]

Q. Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, Section 6(1A) - Unauthorised possession of unlicensed transmitter - Assassination of former Prime Minister - Possession of code sheets used by one of the main accused for communicating from India to other conspirators in Sri Lanka - There is no evidence to show that the accused had any knowledge of the code sheets or what the code sheets were about - Conviction liable to be set aside.
[Para 614]


Cases referred :

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 684 : (AIR 1980 SC 898 : 1980 Cri LJ 636).
Bhagwandas Keshwani v. State of Rajasthan, (1974) 4 SCC 611 at 613 : (AIR 1974 SC 898 (at pp. 901-02) : 1974 Cri LJ 751 at p. 754).
E.G. Barsay v. State of Bombay, (1962) (2) SCR 194 at 228 : (AIR 1961 SC 1762 at p. 1778 : (1961 (2) Cri LJ 828 at pp. 843-44).
Girdhari Parmanand Vadhava v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 11 SCC 179 : (1996 AIR SCW 3957).
Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar, (1964) 2 SCR 623 : (AIR 1964 SC 1184 : 1964 (2) Cri LJ 344).
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 : (1994 AIR SCW 3699 : 1995 Cri LJ 517 : AIR 1994 SC 2623).
Jumman v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 469.
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 526 : (AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839).
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609 : (AIR 1988 SC 1883 : 1989 Cri LJ 1).
Mirza Akbar v. King Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176 : (1940 (4) Cri LJ 871).
Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 4 SCC 494 : (1998 AIR SCW 1741 : AIR 1998 SC 2864 : 1998 Cri LJ 2537).
Natwarlal Sakarlal Mody v. State of Bombay, (1963) 65 Bom LR 660 (SC).
Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 : (1936 (37) Cri LJ 897).
Regina v. Ardalan (1972) 1 WLR 463 (CA).
Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 2 SCR 378 : (AIR 1965 SC 682 : 1965 (1) Cri LJ 608).
Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Bombay, 1958 SCR 161 : (AIR 1957 SC 747 : 1957 Cri LJ 1325).
Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465 : (AIR 1980 SC 439 : 1980 Cri LJ 388).
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Krishan Lal Pardhan, (1987) 2 SCC 17 : (AIR 1987 SC 773 : 1987 Cri LJ 709).
State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC 649 at 668 : (1996 AIR SCW 1977 : AIR 1996 SC 1744 : 1996 Cri LJ 2448).
United States v. Falcone et al., (109 Federal Reporter (2d Series) 579 .
Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 4 SCC 540 : (AIR 1977 SC 2433 : 1978 Cri LJ 189).
Abdul Razak Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, 1988 Cri LJ 382.
Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India, (1993) 3 SCC 609 : (1993 AIR SCW 1866 : AIR 1993 SC 1637 : 1993 Cri LJ 2516).
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898 : (1980 Cri LJ 636).
Bheru Singh s/o Kalyan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1994) 2 SCC 467 : (1995 AIR SCW 2126).
Bhuboni Sahu v. King, AIR 1949 PC 257 : (1949 (50) Cri LJ 872).
Bhuboni Sahu v. King, AIR 1949 PC 257 : (1949 (50) Cri LJ 257).
Bilal Ahmad Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 7 SCC 431 : (1997 AIR SCW 3574 : AIR 1997 SC 3483 : 1997 Cri LJ 4091)..
Booth v. Maryland, (1987) 482 US 496.
Chittaranjan Das v. State of West Bengal, (1964) 3 SCR 237 : (AIR 1963 SC 1696 : 1963 (2) Cri LJ 534).
Dhananjoy Chatterjee alias Dhana v. State of West bengal, (1994) 2 SCC 220 : (1995 AIR SCW 510 at pp. 525).
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Doot, 1973 AC 807.
Hari Charan Kurmi and Jogia Hajam v. State of Bihar, (1964) 6 SCR 623 : (AIR 1964 SC 1184 : 1964 (2) Cri LJ 344).
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1964 SC 1184 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 344).
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602 : (1994 AIR SCW 3699 : AIR 1994 SC 2623 : 1995 Cri LJ 517).
Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay, (1956) SCR 483 : (AIR 1956 SC 575 : 1956 Cri LJ 1116).
Jumman v. State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 469 : (1957 Cri LJ 586).
Kalpanath Rai v. State (Through CBI), (1997) 8 SCC 732 : (1997 AIR SCW 4166 : AIR 1998 SC 201 : 1998 Cri LJ 369).
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 : (1994 Cri LJ 3139).
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR 526 : (AIR 1952 SC 159 : 1952 Cri LJ 839).
Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1988) 3 SCC 609 : (AIR 1988 SC 1883 : 1989 Cri LJ 1).
King v. Jones (1832 B and AD 345).
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, (1983) 3 SCR 413 : (AIR 1983 SC 957 : 1983 Cri LJ 1457).
Mahesh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1987) 3 SCC 80 : (AIR 1987 SC 1346 : 1987 Cri LJ 1073).
Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 2 SCR 378 : (AIR 1965 SC 682 : 1965 (1) Cri LJ 608).
Manipur Administration v. Thokehom Bira Singh, AIR 1965 SC 87 : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 120).
Masalti v. State of U.P., (1964) 8 SCR 133 : (AIR 1965 SC 202 : 1965 (1) Cri LJ 226).
Mirza Akbar v. King-Emperor, AIR 1940 PC 176 : (1940 (41) Cri LJ 871).
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, (1981) 2 SCC 443 : (AIR 1981 SC 1062 : 1981 Cri LJ 588).
Mulcahy v. Reg, (1868) LR 3 HL 306.
Nathu v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 56 : (1956 Cri LJ 152).
Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253 : (1936 (37) Cri LJ 897).
Neharoo Mangtu Satnami v. Emperor, AIR 1937 Nagpur 220 : (1937 (38) CrlJ 642).
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja, (1990) 4 SCC 76 : (AIR 1990 SC 1962 : 1990 Cri LJ 1869) :.
Noor Mohammad Mohd. Yusuf Momin v. State of Maharashtra, (1970) 1 SCC 696 : (AIR 1971 SC 885 : 1971 Cri LJ 793).
Payne v. Tennessee, (111 S.Ct. 2397 (91)).
Quinn v. Leathem, 1901 AC 495 (528).
Rajendra Prasad v. State of U.P., (1979) 3 SCC 646 : (AIR 1979 SC 916 : 1979 Cri LJ 792).
Rama Shankar Singh v. State of West Bengal, 1962 Supp (1) SCR 49 : (AIR 1962 SC 1239 : 1962 (2) Cri LJ 296).
R.S. Pandit v. State of Bihar, 1963 Supp 2 SCR 652 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 65).
Sardar Sardul Singh Caveeshar v. State of Maharashtra, (1964) 2 SCR 378 : (AIR 1965 SC 682 : 1965 (1) Cri LJ 608).
Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465 : (AIR 1980 SC 439 : 1980 Cri LJ 388).
South Carolina v. Gathers, (1989) 490 US 805.
State of Gujarat v. Mohammed Atik, (1998) 4 SCC 351 : (1998 AIR SCW 1453 : AIR 1998 SC 1686 : 1998 Cri LJ 2251).
State v. Wallace, N.C.A. Pp. 283 S.E. 2d. 404, 407.
States of America v. Salvatore Falcone (1940) 85 Law Ed 128 : 311 US 205).
Tulsi Ram v. State of U.P., 1963 Suppl (1) SCR 382 : (AIR 1963 SC 666 : 1963 (1) Cri LJ 623).
USA framed after Furman v. Georgia, (1972) 33 L Ed 2d 346 : 408 US 238).
Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1956) 2 SCR 1140 : (AIR 1956 SC 116 : 1956 Cri LJ 291).
Zimmerman v. Superior Court In and For Maricopa County, 402, P. 2d. 212, 215, 98, Ariz 85, 18 A.L.R. 3d. 900".

Read full Judgment »

22 May, 2016 by Sneha Jaiswal · 0

21 May, 2016

Merely asking the wife to do house hold work or to work at their own field, cannot be termed as "Cruelty"

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

(Aurangabad Bench)
Before :- Shrihari P. Davare, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2001. D/d. 6.4.2011.

Limbraj Vishnu Dhakane - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent

For the Appellant :- S.P. Katneshwarkar, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- V.G. Shelke, A.P.P.
Bombay High Court Judgments
JUDGMENT

Shrihari P. Davare, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. This is an appeal, preferred by original accused Nos. 1 to 5, challenging the conviction and sentence inflicted upon them, by way of judgment and order dated 29.12.2000, rendered by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 59 of 1999, thereby convicting them for offence punishable under Section 498A, read with Section 34,

Read full Judgment »

21 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 1

20 May, 2016

No automatic arrest in 498a, says Supreme Court - Arnesh Kumar Versus State of Bihar & Anr - 2 July, 2014

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1277 OF 2014
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.9127 of 2013)

ARNESH KUMAR ..... APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS


Supreme Court of India

J U D G M E N T

Chandramauli Kr. Prasad

The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter called as IPC) and Section 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The maximum sentence
provided under Section 498-A IPC is imprisonment
for a term which may extend to three years and
fine whereas the maximum sentence provided under
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is two
years and with fine.

Read full Judgment »

20 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

19 May, 2016

Third Friend Request to a Girl on Facebook can get you to Jail

Agra : If you have sent a friend request to a girl on Facebook for the third time, you could be sent to prison. UP Police have classified the crime. A circular to all district police offices by DGP has been sent on the issues with social networking sites and has been said to be a serious crime. On being found guilty for this crime, for this crime Rs.5 lac fine and 3 years of imprisonment has been fixed.Third Friend Request to a Girl on Facebook can get you to Jail

Often seeing pictures of beautiful young girls Facebook friend requests are sent by people.

Read full Judgment »

19 May, 2016 by Sneha Jaiswal · 11

18 May, 2016

Police Officers be punished on Acquittal of Accused : Supreme Court

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Jagdish Singh Khehar
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1485 OF 2008 D/d : 7 January, 2014

State of Gujarat … Appellant
Versus
Kishanbhai Etc. … Respondents

Supreme Court of India Judgments
JUDGMENT

Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. A complaint was lodged at Navrangpura Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging the kidnapping/abduction of a six year old girl child Gomi daughter of Keshabhai Mathabhai Solanki and Laliben on 27.2.2003 at around 6:00 p.m. by the accused Kishanbhai son of Velabhai Vanabhai Marwadi.

Read full Judgment »

18 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 1

Role of Court Reporting Services in resolution of a Legal Case [Sponsored]

When a legal case is under way, one of the most important elements of taking the case to a successful resolution is the court reporting services involved. The intricacies of the law are incredibly complex, which is why every aspect of testimony in a case most be recorded with the utmost attention to accuracy. That’s why it’s so important for a reputable court reporting company, like www. Bartelreporting.com, to be retained to ensure that the complexities of testimony during a busy deposition session are accurately recorded.

Bartel Reporting, LLC, has operated as a court reporting agency in Arizona since 1972, and is now one of the oldest court reporting companies in the area. The company has built a solid reputation on the consistently high quality of its court reporting services, which include the accurate reporting of high volume cases, with a special focus on medical and technical litigation.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

17 May, 2016

The statement of the prosecutrix inspires confidence, truthfulness and trustworthy, the same may be admitted for the purpose of holding the guilt and conviction even in absence of Medical Corroboration

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Before :- Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 1156 of 1999. D/d. 1.8.2014.

Babla Rai and two others - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent


For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

For the Appellants :- Rakesh Sahu, Advocate.
For the State-Respondent :- Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate.
Cases Referred :
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 753.

Chattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur Judgments

JUDGMENT
Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06-04-1999 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.24/95 whereby and where under the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding guilty the appellants for committing gang rape with prosecutrix (PW-2) (name not mentioned),

Read full Judgment »

17 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

©2011-2015 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Free Legal Advice on Phone