Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed on 11.03.11 as under
"entertaining the review petition is proved not only a futile exercise but sheer wastage of judicial time. Applicant has not disclosed anywhere as to whether any grievance has ever been raised by it against the counsel who remained negligent and did not render any service to it. Reply to our first order dated 27.1.2011 has been filed urging that Court is bound to give way to the entitlements of litigants. We are of the considered opinion that such conduct of the litigant has not only been reprehensible but is tantamount to abuse of the process of the court. We are not able to appreciate as to whether the petition was filed to satisfy the ego of the litigant or the litigant was ill-advised by the members of the Bar just for petty pecuniary gain. The petition has been filed without realizing that the courts are over burdened and no litigant should mis-use the forum of the court merely because litigation is a luxury for him."Sep 1, 2011
Ramesh Kumari Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors AIR 2006 SC 1322
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under
At the stage of registration of a crime or a case on the basis of the information disclosing a cognizable offence in compliance with the mandate of Section 154(1) of the Code, the concerned police officer cannot embark upon an enquiry as to whether the information, laid by the informant is reliable and genuine or otherwise and refuse to register a case on the ground that the information is not reliable or credible. On the other hand, the officer in charge of a police station is statutorily obliged to register a case and then to proceed with the investigation if he has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 of the Code to investigate, subject to the proviso to Section 157....In case, an officer in charge of a police station refuses to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and to register a case on the information of a cognizable offence reported and thereby violates the statutory duty cast upon him, the person aggrieved by such refusal can send the substance of the information in writing and by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned who if satisfied that the information forwarded to him discloses a cognizable offence, should either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him in the manner provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 154 of the Code.
Be it noted that in Section 154(1) of the Code, the legislature in its collective wisdom has carefully and cautiously used the expression "information" without qualifying the sama as in Section 41(1)(a) or (g) of the Code wherein the expressions, "reasonable complaint" and "credible information" are used. Evidently, the non-qualification of the word "information" in Section 154(1) unlike in Section 41(1)(a) and (g) of the Code may be for the reason that the police officer should not refuse to record an information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence and to register a case thereon on the ground that he is not satisfied with the reasonableness or credibility of the information. In other words, 'reasonableness' or 'credibility' of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case. A comparison of the present Section 154 with those of the earlier Codes will indicate that the legislature had purposely thought it fit to employ only the word "information" without qualifying the said word. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1861 (Act 25 of 1861) passed by the Legislative Council of India read that 'every complaint or information' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station should be reduced into writing which provision was subsequently modified by Section 112 of the Code of 1872 (Act 10 of 1872) which thereafter read that 'every complaint' preferred to an officer in charge of a police station shall be reduced in writing....
Asmathunnisa Vs State of A P, SC on 29.03.11
SC & ST Act - sec 3 - appellant and her husband came to the house of complainant and met the wife of complainant - complainant was not there - husband of appellant used insulting language about the cast of complaint - public must view the person being insult for which he must be present and no offence on the allegation
Aug 26, 2011
GOVT CAUGHT ON WRONG FOOT Lastupdate:- Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com
GOVT CAUGHT ON WRONG FOOT Lastupdate:- Fri, 26 Aug 2011 18:30:00 GMT GreaterKashmir.com: "The Commission has observed that two posts of Public Prosecutors have been created vide Government Order No: 3081 of 2005 dated 16-03-2005. “But so far no steps have been taken to fill up those posts. With the result, no prosecutor is available to pursue the cases on prosecution side,” it observed."
'via Blog this'
'via Blog this'
Aug 22, 2011
Nothing in law to disbelieve policemen: SC - The Times of India
Nothing in law to disbelieve policemen: SC - The Times of India: NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has said all policemen are not bad and there is nothing in law which says that a statement made by a cop cannot be treated as an admissible evidence.
A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and C K Prasad said statements of police personnel cannot be outrightly rejected but should be weighed on the facts of the case.
"There is no principle of law that a statement made in a court by a policeman has to be disbelieved. It may or may not be believed. It is not that all policemen will tell lies. There are good and bad people in all walks of life.
"There are good and bad police men as well. We cannot assume that every statement of a policeman is necessarily false," Justice Katju said writing the judgement.
A bench of justices Markandeya Katju and C K Prasad said statements of police personnel cannot be outrightly rejected but should be weighed on the facts of the case.
"There is no principle of law that a statement made in a court by a policeman has to be disbelieved. It may or may not be believed. It is not that all policemen will tell lies. There are good and bad people in all walks of life.
"There are good and bad police men as well. We cannot assume that every statement of a policeman is necessarily false," Justice Katju said writing the judgement.
Aug 20, 2011
RS passes Sen impeachment motion and questions how judges appoint themselves « LAW RESOURCE INDIA
RS passes Sen impeachment motion and questions how judges appoint themselves « LAW RESOURCE INDIA: Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Arun Jaitley said that the time had come to revisit the procedure for appointment of judges, strongly favouring a National Judicial Commission (NJC) to replace the collegium system. “The system of judges alone appointing judges must now change. India needs a National Judicial Commission to appoint judges,” Jaitley said. He said the NJC should comprise representatives of the judiciary and executive, as well as prominent citizens.
Aug 19, 2011
The Hindu : News / National : Charge sheet next week in cash-for-votes scam case
The Hindu : News / National : Charge sheet next week in cash-for-votes scam case: Public Prosecutor Rajeev Mohan, representing the Crime Branch, told Additional Sessions Judge Sangeeta Dhingra Sehgal that the charge sheet would be filed before the three-week period, given by the Supreme Court on August 5 to complete investigation, elapsed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)