🔔 Daily Current Affairs 🔔 📖 8.Karnataka High Court rejects plea to quash case against former Minister MR Seetharam for unaccounted routing of 50 lakh.

×××××× Legal Update ×××××× ✳️अग्रिम जमानत याचिका को इस आधार पर खारिज नहीं किया जा सकता कि चार्जशीट दायर की जा चुकी है या अदालत ने अपराध का संज्ञान लिया है: इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ====+====+====+====+==== 🟦इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट ने हाल ही में कहा कि एक अभियुक्त द्वारा दायर अग्रिम जमानत आवेदन को इस आधार पर कभी भी

Davinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab[Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2015]M. M. Sundresh, J.1. The appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High

• DV ACT Section 12 read with Sections 19 and 20 Quashing of proceedings It has been alleged that complainant’s husband has an illicit relationship with present petitioner No.2 who is married to petitioner No.1 Petitioners are not related to opposite party no.2 by consanguinity, marriage or relationship In nature of marriage, adoption or members

LATEST LANDMARK JUDGMENTS IN CRIMINAL LAW – UPDATED 2023 *

Allahabad High Court begins hearing on ‘Adipurush’ movie A scene of oral arguments on the movie ‘Adipurush’ in Allahabad High Court. (Not the part of the order)

Ejectment of licencee.Law in nutshell. (relied – Sant Lal vs Avrat Singh AIR 1985 SC 897) The possession of such person shall be of a trespasser and unlawful. 2022 (154) ALR 649Sadrey Allam vs Raam Avad

• Section 397 401 CRPC The revisional power cannot be exercised in a casual or mechanical manner. It can only be exercised to correct manifest error of law or procedure which would occasion injustice, if it is not corrected. The revisional power cannot be equated with appellate power. A revisional court cannot undertake meticulous examination

• Sections 376, 366 and 363 IPC POCSO ACT Section 6 Allegation of rape Acquittal Statement of prosecutrix shows that she had misrepresented her age to be eighteen years to accused She categorically stated that had she not done so, accused would not have allowed her to accompany him Though prosecutrix was minor on date