Friday, 20 September 2019

Questions and answer on law Part 3

1) Landmark Judgment of Supreme court for prosecution of accused U/S 498A of IPC

In the aforesaid analysis, while declaring the directions pertaining to Family Welfare Committee and its constitution by the District Legal Services Authority and the power conferred on the Committee is impermissible. Therefore, we think it appropriate to direct that the investigating officers be careful and be guided by the principles stated in Joginder Kumar (supra), D.K. Basu (supra), Lalita Kumari (supra) and Arnesh Kumar (supra). It will also be appropriate to direct the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by this Court relating to arrest.
39. In view of the aforesaid premises, the direction contained in paragraph 19(i) as a whole is not in accord with the statutory framework and the direction issued in paragraph 19(ii) shall be read in conjunction with the direction given hereinabove.
40. Direction No. 19(iii) is modified to the extent that if a settlement is arrived at, the parties can approach the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the High Court, keeping in view the law laid down in Gian Singh (supra), shall dispose of the same.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2015

Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs Union of India
Coram: 

Dipak Misra CJI,

A.M. Khanwilkar J,

Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J.

Dated:September 14 , 2018.
Citation:(2018) 10 SCC 443
Read full judgment here: Click here

2) Whether magistrate can direct further investigation after taking cognizance of offence?

Though the Magistrate has the power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) at the pre-cognizance stage even after a charge-sheet or a closure report is submitted, once cognizance is taken and the accused person appears pursuant thereto, he would be bereft of any competence to direct further investigation either suo motu or acting on the request or prayer of the complainant/informant. 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(Before Dipak Misra and Amitava Roy, JJ.)

Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors. 

Criminal Appeal No. 1171 of 2016

Decided on February 2, 2017
Citation: 2017 SCC OnLine SC 86
Read full judgment here: Click here

3) What is meaning of pari materia?
[Latin, Of the same matter; on the same subject.] The 
phrase used in connection with two laws relating to
 the same subject matter that must be analyzed with each other.When two statutes are relating to same subject matter,it is said that they are pari material to each other.

4) How to calculate ninety days for grant of default bail under S167 of crpc?


 In State of M.P. v. Rustam and others1995 Supp (3) SCC 221, this Court
has laid down the law that while computing period of ninety
days, the day on which the accused was remanded to the
judicial custody should be excluded, and the day on which
challan is filed in the court, should be included. That being
so, in our opinion, in the present case, date 5.7.2013 is to be
excluded and, as such, the charge sheet was filed on
ninetieth day, i.e., 3.10.2013.
Therefore, there is no
infringement of Section 167(2) of the Code.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMILAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.325 OF 2015
Ravi Prakash Singh @ Arvind Singh State of Bihar
Citation;2015 ALLMR(cri)1230 SC

Read full judgment here: Click here





5)Doctrine of Double Jeopardy

Article 20(2) says that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once. This is called Doctrine of Double Jeopardy



6) Under which section of domestic violence Act,relief against domestic violence can be claimed before civil court,criminal court or family court? 
Ans- S 26 of domestic violence Act.

7) What is scope of S 378 of CRPC?

Ans. S 378 of CRPC provides appeal against acquittal,limitation for appeal against acquittal.It provides for appeal by state, complainant and victim.

8) Whether person who has acquired right to property by adverse possession can use it sword?



 We hold that a person in possession cannot be ousted by another
person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of

adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and

the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by
the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has
prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or
interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well as
a shield by the defendant within ken of Article 65 of the Act and any
person who has perfected title by way of adverse possession, can file a
suit for restoration of possession in case of dispossession.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.7764 OF 2014

RAVINDER KAUR GREWAL  Vs MANJIT KAUR 


ARUN MISHRA, J.
Dated:August 07, 2019.
Read full judgment here: Click here


9) The object of Section 313 of the Code is to establish a direct
dialogue between the Court and the accused. If a point in the
evidence is important against the accused, and the conviction is
intended to be based upon it, it is right and proper that the accused
should be questioned about the matter and be given an opportunity
of explaining it. Where no specific question has been put by the
trial Court on an inculpatory material in the prosecution evidence,
it would vitiate the trial. Of course, all these are subject to rider

whether they have caused miscarriage of justice or prejudice. 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1905 OF 2009

SAMSUL HAQUE  Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM

SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
Dated:August 26, 2019.
Read full judgment here: Click here

10)Supreme court judgment limiting Marital rape of Minor Bride


 Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Code to now be meaningfully read as: "Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape."
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 382 of 2013 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Decided On: 11.10.2017

 Independent Thought Vs. Union of India (UOI) 


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.
Read full judgment here: Click here

11) Triple Talaq Judgment


 In view of the different opinions recorded, by a majority of 3:2 the practice of 'talaq-e-biddat'-triple talaq is set aside.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Writ Petition (C) Nos. 118, 288, 327, 665 of 2016, 43 of 2017 and Suo Motu Writ (C) No. 2 of 2015 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)

Decided On: 22.08.2017

 Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.


Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.S. Khehar, C.J.I., Kurian Joseph, Rohinton Fali Nariman, U.U. Lalit and S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
Citation: (2017)9 SCC 1
Read full judgment here: Click here
Print Page

No comments:

Post a Comment