The question that arises for consideration, therefore, is what is the true import of the expression “Government of India”? In its narrower sense, Government of India is only the executive limb of […]
The Miranda decision was rendered under a system of law in which an utterance made by a suspect before the police could lead to his conviction and even the imposition of the […]
The most clinching evidence regarding conspiracy comes from the recordings of intercepted telephone calls between the terrorists and their co-conspirators and collaborators sitting in a foreign land
While dealing with the CST episode we must take note of two other witnesses. Their evidence is extraordinary in that they did not only witness the incidents but also made a visual record of the events by taking pictures of the two killers in action and also of their victims.
The Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab was produced before the magistrate as directed, on February 20 at 10.40 AM. The magistrate repeated the entire gamut of explanations and cautions at the end […]
This is because a document in cheque form, on which the customer’s name as drawer is forged, is a mere nullity.
burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts.
Substantial evidence consists of evidence of circumstances none of which speak directly to the facts in issue but from which those facts may be inferred. In cases where evidence is of substantial nature circumstances from which conclusion of a fact is to be drawn should in first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of wrong doer.
If the definition of conclusive proof given in Section 4 of the Evidence Act is applicable to any fact, then both the consequence mentioned above would occur, which means that what is declared to be conclusive proof shall not only be sufficient evidence of the concerned fact, the parties would not have any right to adduce evidence to disprove that fact.
The least that is required of a Court is the capacity to deliver a “definitive judgment” and unless this power vests in a tribunal in any particular case, the mere fact that the procedure adopted by it is of a legal character and it has the power to administer an oath will not impart to it the status of a Court”, and came to the conclusion that the commission appointed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 is not a Court within the meaning of the Contempt of ‘Courts Act, 1952.