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.