Saturday, December 5, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
In a latest Judgment, the Apex Court, in AIR 2000 SC
988 held in a case of rape committed on Bangladeshi woman
by Railway employees or Union of India, Since public functionaries
w ere involved who were guilty of the alleged offence of rape
and since the matter pertains to the violation of fundamental
rights and also enforcement of the public duties, remedy would
be available under the public law not-withstanding that a suit
could be filed for damages under private law , it was more so
where it was not violation of an ordinary right of a person but
the violations or fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held the Union of
India to be vicariously liable in damages, as an employer, to
the person, wronged by its employees.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Monday, September 14, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Learned Counsel for the State submits that the Petitioner has filed a Civil suit before the Civil Court praying for injunction. We are of the view that even if a suit has been filed and whatever relief might have been sought for in the said suit, since the action of Opposite Parties in dispossessing the petitioner from his residential house is without jurisdiction and authority of law, the present Writ Petition is not barred._______Vol. 106 CLT 329
relied upon Whirpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks [(1998) 8
SCC 1] observing that in an appropriate case, in spite of availability of the
alternative remedy, the High Court may still exercise its writ jurisdiction in
at least three contingencies : (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of
any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is failure of principles of
natural justice; or (iii) where the orders or proceedings are wholly without
jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged.
Court. It only saves the inherent power which the Court
possessed before the enactment of the Code. It envisages three
circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be
exercised, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code
(ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court, and (iii) to
otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is neither possible nor
desirable to lay down any inflexible rule which would govern
the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. No legislative enactment
dealing with procedure can provide for all cases that may
possibly arise. Courts, therefore, have inherent powers apart
from express provisions of law which are necessary for proper
discharge of functions and duties imposed upon them by law.
That is the doctrine which finds expression in the section
which merely recognizes and preserves inherent powers of the
High Courts. All courts, whether civil or criminal possess, in
the absence of any express provision, as inherent in their
constitution, all such powers as are necessary to do the right
and to undo a wrong in course of administration of justice on
the principle "quando lex aliauid alicui concedit, concedere
videtur et id sine guo res ipsae esse non potest" (when the law
gives a person anything it gives him that without which it
cannot exist). While exercising powers under the section, the
court does not function as a court of appeal or revision.
Inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when
such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in
the section itself. It is to be exercised ex debito justitiae to do
real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse
that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power
to prevent abuse. It would be an abuse of process of the court,
to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice, fn exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that
initiation/continuance of it amounts to 'abuse of the process
of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the
report, the court may examine the question of fact. When a
report is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the report has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto.
Friday, September 4, 2009
It is settled that High Court can exercise its power of judicial review in criminal matters. In State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, this court examined the extraordinary power under article 226 of the Constitution and also the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which it said could be exercised by the High Court either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. While laying down certain guidelines where the court will exercise jurisdiction under these provisions, it was also stated that these guidelines could not be inflexible or laying rigid formulae to the followed by the facts and circumstances of each case but with the sole purpose to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. One of such guideline is where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. Under Article 227 the power of superintendence by the High Court is not only of administrative nature but is also of judicial nature. This article confers vast powers on the High Court to prevent the abuse of the process of law by the inferior courts and to see that the stream of administration of justice remains clean and pure, The power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution and under Section 482 of the Code have no limits but more the power more due care and caution is to be exercised invoking these powers. When the exercise of powers could be under Article 227 or Section 482 of the Code it may not always be necessary to invoke the provisions of Article 226. Some of the decisions of this Court laying down principles for the exercise of powers by the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 may be referred to._____________292 CLT Vol106
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
The young women, three of whom spoke at the sentencing, had a different story to tell. "I was 14. You took my adolescence, my trust, my dream and completely manipulated them for your sexual desires," said one, who is now 17. "It sickens me that a grown man can do such a thing to a girl. A girl who was naive and had the belief that all people were good. And you took that to your advantage."
That was around the time, the prosecution charged, Jon took advantage of his growing profile to entice young women over the internet with promises of modelling assignments and jobs.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Order 7, Rule 7, C. P. C. gives unfettered jurisdiction to the Civil Court to grant any appropriate relief to a party. The pleadings in most cases are loosely drafted and therefore, the Courts are duty bound to take the entire pleadings into consideration to find out what relief a party is actually asking for and can grant such relief, even if such relief is not specifically asked for in the prayer portion of the plaint.
Order 7, Rule 7, C. P. C., the Civil Court has inherent power to grant either general relief or other relief which appears to it to be legitimate and proper in any case, even though such reliefs have not been specifically asked for. Where the Plaintiff comes with a claim of larger relief, but is found entitled to a lesser one, then in appropriate case, the suit need not be dismissed and such lesser relief may be granted to him, if it is found to be just and proper. The Court should not scrutinize the pleadings with such meticulus care so as to result in genuine claims being defeated on trivial grounds. The pleading has to be read as a whole to ascertain its true import and it is not permissible to cull out a sentence or passage and read it out of the context, in isolation. The intention of the party concerned is to be gathered primarily from the tenor and term of his pleading taken as a whole. In case as question arise as to whether a particular relief has been asked for, the whole of the plaint should be taken into consideration and the substance and not merely the form of the plaint, should be looked into. Under Order 7, Rule 7, C. P. C. the Court can grant a relief, which has not been speciffically prayed for, if the Court thought it just and proper that such a relief should be given.
The wording of Order 7, Rule 7, C. P. C. and the observation of the Apex Court and different High Courts thus propagate that even if the Plaintiff has not asked for a specific relief, such relief can be granted by the Court if in the opinion of the Court grant of such relief is just and proper.
The law is well settled that when there is an error in exercise of jurisdiction or when an inferior Court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will quash the said order. But where there may be conceivably two opinions, it can hardly be said to be an error and not every error can be corrected by a superior Court in exercise of its statutory powers as a Court of appeal or revision._________Vol. 106 CLT 281
Thursday, August 27, 2009
A prisoner wears the armour of basic freedom even behind bars and that on breach thereof by lawless officials the law will respond to his distress signals through writ aid. The Indian human has a constant companion-the Court armed with Constitution. The weapon is Habeas, the pow er is Par t - III and the projectile is Batra, AIR 1978 SC 167.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another (Supra), but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI. That, however should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them.
In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services U.P. and others vs. Sahngoo Ram Arya and another 2002 (5) SCC 521 (vide para 6) , this Court observed that although the High Court has power to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by the CBI or by any other similar agency. A CBI inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because the party makes some allegation.
In Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another 2003 (6) SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate).
We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.
It has been held by this Court in CBI & another vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another 1997 Cr.L.J 63 (vide para 8) that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
It is a well settled proposition of law that a writ of certiorary cannot be issued to a subordinate Court/Tribunal/authority exercising judicial/quasi judicial power by supplementing the Judgment of such lower authority with a fresh Judgment/order, unless the order of such subordinate authority is manifestly illegal and unjust and suffers from error of law and fact apparent on the face of it. It is also a well-known principle of law that a writ of certiorary can be issued only if the order of the inferior Tribunal or subordinate Court suffers from an error of jurisdiction, or from a breach of the principles of natural justice or is vitiated by a manifest or apparent error of law. There is no sanction enabling the High Court to reappraise the evidence without sufficient reason in law and reach findings of fact contrary to those rendered by an inferior Court or subordinate Court. (See A.I.R.1986 SC 302, Harbans Lal v. Jagmohan Saran). Nothing has been brought out before this Court to bring the impunged order within the parameters, as envisaged above, so as to call for interference by this Court with the said order by issuance of a writ of certiorary in quashing the same.
Before parting, we note with some anguish that this case is a classic example of how a judicial process can be misused by unscrupulous litigants, more so, when the person concerned himself happens to be an advocate. In the first instance, neither “D.K. Jain” nor “Deepak Jain”, actually one and the same person, challenged the ex-parte decree dated 10th March, 1997 and it was only when execution proceedings were initiated against “Deepak Jain”, that to obstruct execution, he raised a frivolous plea of the identification of the Judgement-debtor, with the result that although over a decade has gone by yet the decree holder has not been able to enjoy the fruits of the money decree so far.__________CLT Vol.108 (231)
Time and again it has been emphasized that judicial propriety and decorum requires that if a Single Judge, hearing a matter, feels that earlier decision of a Single Judge needs re-consideration, he should not embark upon that enquiry, sitting as a Single Judge, but should refer the matter to a larger Bench. Regrettably, in the present case, the Learned Single Judge departed from the said healthy principle and choose to re-examine the same question himself.__________CLT Vol.108 (231)
A bare reading of Section 152 CPC makes it clear that the power of the Court under the said provision is limited to rectification of clerical and arithimetical errors arising from any accidental slip or omission. There cannot be re-consideration of the merits of the matter and the sole object of the provision is based on the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, i.e., an act of Court shall prejudice no man. In our Judgment, the issue requiring adjudication by the Executing Court did not call for and was clearly the scope of Section 152 CPC.__________CLT Vol.108 (231)
Driving recklessly/dangerously, non-observance of traffic rules, driving without driving licence, driving by untrained/disqualified drivers/minors, driving under the influence of liquor, driving while talking on mobile phone, driving without helmet, ill-health of vehicles and bad road infrastructure are among the causes of accidents, accroding to the report.
For rash driving or riding on a public way in a manner as to endanger human life, the Commission suggested amending Section 279 IPC by introducing Section 279 A and providing for five years’ imprisonment, as against six months at present. Similar under Section 338 IPC for causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others, the Commission suggested five-year imprisonment as against two years at present and for reckless driving under Section 184 IPC, the Commission has recommended a punishment of five years.
“Install CCTV cameras”
The Commission asked the Centre to enact a comprehensive legislation on road traffic law to regulate all kinds of traffic. “As an important part of the enforcement measures, there should be compulsorily installed CCTV cameras at all vulnerable points, to be determined by an expert committee to curb traffic violations.”
Further all motor vehicles should be fitted with irremovable or tamperproof speed governors to regulate speed, the report said.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Friday, August 7, 2009
There is a clear distinction in law regarding pleadings in the Writ Petition and that of a suit proceedings. A petitioner is required adduce evidence to substantiate the pleadings of the Writ Petition. There is nothing on the record to show as on what basis the statement had been made by the Petitioner, that compensation had not been paid to his forefathers. The petitioner was born after 15 years of acquisition of the land. The Petitioner's father or grandfather could have challenged the acquisition proceedings. However, they did not choose to do so. Even if the land had been taken illegally, the issue cannot be examined at such a belated stage. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Property in legal sense means an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by law. It extends to every species of valuable right and interest, more particularly, ownership and exclusive right to a thing, the right to dispose of things in every legal way to possess it, to use it and to exclude everyone else from interfering with it. The dominion or indefinite right of use or disposition which one may lawfully exercise over particular things or subjects is called property.________ (Jilubhai Nanbhia Khachar etc. etc Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr., AIR 1995 SC 142)
The Court further observed that a person who is deprived of his property without authority of law is entitled to compensation.___________CLT Vol. 108 (88)
“Encumbrance” actually mean the burden caused by an act or omission of man and not that created by nature. It means a burden or charge upon property or a claim or lien on the land. It means a legal liability on property. Thus, it constitutes a burden on the title which diminishes the value of the land. So far as the provisions of the land acquisition Act are concerned, the word 'encumbrance' means the interest in respect of which compensation has been made or could have been claimed. These examples of “encumbrance” includes a lease or a mortgage, securities, servitudes and trust, etc. (Vide Colector of Bombay Vs. Nusserwanji Rattanji Mistri and Ors., AIR 1955 SC 298)
In view of the above, the law can be summarized that once the land is acquired it vests in the State free from all encumbrances. It is not the concern of the land owner as how his land is used and whether the land is being used for the purpose for which it was acquired or for any other purpose. He becomes persona non grata once the land vests in the State. He has a right to get compensation only for the same. The person interested cannot claim the right of restitution of land on any ground, whatsoever.______CLT Vol. 108 (93)
Later entry be presumed to be correct until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect and previous entry shall be admissible as evidence of fact existing at the time such entry was made._________CLT. Vol.101 (737)
It is true that accused's act of raping a child of 6 years and murdering her due to gagging her mouth and nosetrix at the time of incident is quite heinous and requires to be condemned but at the same time it cannot be said that it is rarest of the rare case where accused requires to be eliminated from the society. Hence, there is no justifiable reason to impose death sentence.________2002 (1) Cri.80 (SC)
Even otherwise the petitioners could have approached the authorities dealing with complaints under the provisions of the Complaint Handling Procedure. Without exhausting the aforesaid remedies available to the petitioners they should not have rushed to this Court by invoking the extra-ordinary powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution.___________71 CLT, Vol. 95
The principle is that when the only man who can prove a fact has a strong motive for asserting it, his evidence must be received with greater caution than that of a disinterested witness, and that every circumstances of legitimate suspicion which is found to exist must make any reasonable man less ready to accept his uncorroborated testimony.
Why should the evidence of a girl or a woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation, be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion?
Just as a witness who has sustained some injury in the occurrence, which is not found to be self-inflicted, is considered to be a good witness in the sense that he is least likely to shield the real culprit, the evidence of a victim of a sexual offence is entitled to great weight, absence of corroboration notwithstanding.
The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her.
If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice.
If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case discloses that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the Court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.____________87CLT, 709, 710
A civil contempt is failure to do something ordered to be done by a court in a civil action for the benefit of the opposing party therein, while “a criminal contempt” is conduct that is directed against the dignity and authority of the court._____________S.S.Roy V.State, 54 Cr.L.J.1578 : AIR 1953 Orissa 266 : I.L.R. 1952 Cut. 467.
In order to award death sentence the court should ask itself and answer the following question : (i) Was there something uncommon about the crime which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? (ii) Were the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according maximum weightage to the mitigating circumstances which speak in favour of the offender?___________1999, Crimes, Dec 314 (S.C)
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
No relief could be granted in the case as the SIT was functioning directly under the supervision of the Supreme Court, the judge said.
Mr. Maliwad pointed out that the Supreme Court’s direction to “look into” Ms. Jafri’s complaint did not automatically give the SIT powers under the Criminal Procedure Code or the Indian Penal Code to summon or question Mr. Modi and others she had named. For, no FIR was lodged in connection with the Gulberg Society massacre.
K.G. Menon, counsel for the SIT, however, said that as per the Supreme Court’s order, it was required to “find out the truth” in Ms. Jafri’s complaint and “that is exactly what the SIT is doing now.” He said the Supreme Court order gave it the authority to “take necessary steps” to find out the truth, and under the law a preliminary inquiry into the contents of the complaint was permissible.
"Anybody can be arrested. Anybody who has nothing to do with this case can be arrested. What material was there for the arrest? Even now, they (State) have been unable to produce the material," the Bench remarked when Mr. Khan said there was nothing wrong with the High Court order which was delivered when the whole of Kashmir had to suffer.
The two police officers had also challenged the order that their bail plea could only be heard by the High Court Bench which has passed the order of their arrest.
"We want to maintain the rule of law. We want that the police officers should make their bail plea before proper court. It (bail) will be considered by the sessions court," the Bench said.
The submission by the advocates representing the Jammu and High Court Bar Association on whose petition the High Court had passed the order that the report submitted in sealed cover was the basis for the direction to arrest the police officers did not impress the Bench.
"Everybody in the neighbourhood could be arrested.Should there not be a proper investigation?" the apex court Bench said and took exception to the monitoring of the case by the High Court.
"Does the High Court have to monitor criminal cases? How many cases of rape are monitored by the High Court?" it said before passing the order in which it extended the stay on the High Court order directing narco analysis test of the police officers.
The Bench also expressed surprise that only because of the agitation, the investigation was handed over to the Special Investigation Team.
"Why does the High Court say they should move for bail before it?" the Bench said adding "they are entitled to protection under the law".
Mr. Salve assured the Bench that police officers will be given full protection when they move the sessions court for bail.
The assurance came when Mr. Rohatgi pressed that the apex court should hear the bail plea as the environment in the State was not conducive and no lawyers would appear in the case as the High Court order was passed on a petition by the High Court Bar Association.
The advocates representing the Bar Association also assured the Bench that the lawyers would not be prevented from appearing the case on behalf of the police officers.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Additionally, Gopalika is charged with two counts of unlawful contact with a minor (related to obscene performances), along with one count of criminal use of a computer, all third-degree felonies — each punishable by up to seven years in prison and $15,000 fines.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
It is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substaniate his submission made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas.___CLT Vol.108 (89)
“In our opinion, when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the Writ Petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must apper from the Writ Petition and if he is the Respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the Writ Petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a Writ Petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not the evidence are required to be pleaded. In a Writ Petition or in the counter affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” (Emphasis added).
______________Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1988 SC 2181
Similar views : -
M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Stae of Gujarat & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1608
National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 2779
Ram Narain Arora Vs. Asha Rani & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 3012
Smt Chitra Kumari Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1237
State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Chandra pPrakash Pandey & Ors., AIR 2001 SC 1298
M/s. Atul castings Ltd. Vs. Bawa Gurvacha Singh, AIR 2001 SC 1684
Vithal N. Shetti & Anr. Vs. Orakash N. Rudrakar & Ors., (2003) 1 SCC 18
Devasahayam (Dead) by L.Rs.Vs. P. Savithramma & ors., (205) 7 SCC 653
Sait Nagjee Purushottam & Co. Ltd. Vs. Vimalabai Prabhulal & ors., (2005) 8 SCC 252
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Justice Gosh also appealed to the people of Shopian to end the strike and cooperate with the investigating team.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Pawar said that manufacturing of illegal firearms is the main business in the village.
Pawar said that other than criminals, builders and some political personalities also possessed illegal firearms, ostensibly due to threats received by them.
The illegal firearms which were seized during previous raids, have been destroyed by the
Thursday, July 2, 2009
However, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalises homosexuality, will continue for non-consensual and non-vaginal sex.
"We declare section 377 of IPC in so far as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private is violative of Articles 14, 21 and 15 of the Constitution," a Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice S. Murlidhar said.
The High Court said "the provision of Section 377 IPC will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors".
The court clarified that "by adults we mean everyone who is 18 years of age or above."
"In our view Indian Constitutional Law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconception of who the LGBTs (lesbian gay bisexual transgender) are.
"It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster dignity of every individual," the Bench said in its 105-page judgement.
Drew, with her own teenage daughter and a business assistant, Ashley Grills, used the fake profile to flirt with, befriend and then abandon Meier, leading Meier to hang herself, prosecutors contend.
Federal prosecutors charged Drew under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which bans unauthorized access to computers and has previously been used to combat computer hacking, for violating MySpace's terms of service.
Unauthorized access to computers for violating MySpace's terms of service...........
Drew's lawyers and outside legal experts have argued that the unusual prosecution could broaden the scope of what's considered criminal conduct
Also on the anvil were laws to strengthen witness protection, a less severe attitude to allowing in foreign law firms. In the midst of gay pride rallies in three big cities, he even made a bold promise to reevaluate a law that still criminalizes homosexuality in India.
On Thursday, in a historic judgment, the Delhi High Court went ahead and struck down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, decriminalizing homosexuality. This judgment is particularly surprising, given the revisionist thinking that followed the groundbreaking nature of some of such controversial pronouncements.
After Islamic and Christian groups expressed loud reservations, the law minister had to famously renege on his own casually offered pledge to amend Article 377, the law authored during Lord Macaulay's time that makes "unnatural sex" a punishable offence. It was hardly, if ever, used punitively on consensual homosexual activity, but gay rights activists have long wanted the "criminal" tag to go.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Friday, June 5, 2009
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Monday, June 1, 2009
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Saturday, May 2, 2009
“Hackers are using social engineering techniques for better results. They send mails with words ‘Swine flu’ in the subject line. Embedded URLs in these mails entice users to follow links for more information. The users then unknowingly download malicious code onto the computer,” said Singh.
- The SC has held, "The police may have the power to seize a passport under section 102 (1) of CrPC, but it does not have the power to impound the same. Impounding of a passport can only be done by the passport authority under section 10 (3) of the Passports Act, 1967."
- A division bench of justice P P Naolekar and justice Markandey Katju has observed, "If the police seizes a passport, the police must send it along with a letter to the passport authority, clearly stating that the seized passport deserves to be impounded for one of the reasons mentioned in section 10 (3) of the Passport Act. The passport authority should decide whether to impound the passport or not. Since impounding of a passport has civil , the passport authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned before impounding the passport."
- A seizure is done at a particular moment of time. However, if after seizing of a property or document it is retained for some period of time, then such retention amounts to impounding of the property or document.
- "Several persons have approached the Bombay high court asking that their passports be returned. The HC has also held that the police had no authority to impound or seize the passport," Karlekar stated.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Friday, April 10, 2009
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
The Judges also asked the government to file a reply as to why it should not be directed to pay compensation for personal injury, damage to property and meet all expenses for immediately repairing the court premises, court halls, furniture and lawyers chambers, including that of the state counsel.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Senior US district judge Warren Eginton said his ruling was the first criminal case in which someone convicted of possessing illegal images — but not creating them — is required to pay restitution.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Section 67 of the existing act deals with "publishing obscene information in electronic form". It is a generally worded section that does not specifically define "pornography" or make it an offence, and does not mention "child pornography" at all. But in its amended avatar, Section 67B proposes specifically to punish involvement in sexually explicit online or electronic content that depicts children. It will also be an offence to "cultivate, entice or induce children to online relationship with other children for a sexual act."
Both experts noted that an offence of "cyber terrorism" punishable with life imprisonment, for instance, is a vital new addition, and that its definition is exhaustive.
Legal experts note that while the amendments don’t make it illegal to view adult porn, they do make watching child porn an offence (the law would apply to "whoever creates text or digital images, collects, seeks, browses, downloads" child porn). The fear is that the section would kick in even if sites were opened accidentally, because a computer may store information about such a site being accessed.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Friday, February 6, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
An additional director general of police in Kerala [Images] was on Monday sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment by a court in Kochi in connection with a case of assault on the editor of a Malayalam eveninger from Kannur in 1988.
Besides K G Premshankar, who is now the additional director general of police (Protection of Civil Rights) Thiruvananthapuram, three other policemen were also sentenced to six months' simple imprisonment by Ernakulam Chief Judicial Magistrate P D Soman in the case, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation. They are former Kannur circle inspector P Jayaraj, former Mattanur sub inspector R V Kunhiraman and former Kannur sub-inspector K Abdul Gaffoor.
K G Premshankar was the superintendent of police of Kannur when the incident occurred.
The CJM acquitted eight other policemen in the case. He imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 each on all the four police personnel convicted.
The case relates to the assault of Maniyeri Madhavan, Editor of Sudhinam by the policemen on February 12, 1988, after some reports were published against them.
Following the direction of Supreme court, the CBI had investigated the case. Earlier the local police and the crime branch had investigated the case.
Since Madhavan had passed away a few years ago, the CJM court directed that the fine amount be handed over to his legal heirs.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Just to remind you, it's not just the Internet that the IT Act covers, it also covers activities performed using your computer, PDA, mobile phone, and other devices of communication. So, things like forwarding an SMS and sending an MMS too now fall under the jurisdiction of the IT Act. So what has been touted as an offence? Publishing and transmitting obscene material or any sexually explicit act/content can put you behind bars for a long duration - 5 years, not to mention the hefty 10 lakh fine it attracts. Also included is sending offensive, threatening messages and spreading hate messages using any electronic medium; these too will attract penalties similar to those mentioned earlier. The once popular trend of forwarding MMS clips (usually fake) of celebrities, captured using hidden cameras, too comes under the wrap of the Act now.