Category: Criminal

State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Sahoo & Ors-16/07/19

It was found that the respondents had violated the provisions under Sections 3(2), 5 and 29 of the PC and PNDT Act which is punishable under Sections 23 and 25 of the said Act. For violation of PC and PNDT Act and Rule, the authorized officer of the Collector-cum-District Appropriate Authority, Dhenkanal, seized the ultrasound machine and other equipments from the said clinic. For such violation, the registration of ultrasound clinic of the respondents has been suspended vide order of the Collector dated 18.06.2014. A complaint was filed against the accused-respondent under Section 28(2) of the PC and PNDT Act. The Trial Court took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 3(2), 5, 29, 23 and 25 of the PC and PNDT Act and issued summons to the respondents.


Regina vs Albert William Granon- 2 July 2019

Sheffield Crown Court-No sentence I impose can bring Stanley back. No sentence I impose can undo what you have done and heal the rifts in your family. All I can do is impose what the law considers to be the appropriate sentence for a case of this nature. I do that by following the guidelines for sentencing in cases of manslaughter.

When the Order  of the Magistrate issuing process against the accused can be quashed or set aside

The Magistrate has been given an undoubted discretion in the matter and the discretion has to be judicially exercised by him. Once the Magistrate has exercised his discretion it is not for the High Court or even the Supreme Court, to substitute its own discretion for that of the Magistrate or to examine the case on merits with a view to find out whether or not the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in conviction of the accused. These considerations are totally foreign to the scope and ambit of an inquiry u/s 202 which culminates into an order u/s 204.

Magistrates should not call police officers to their Courts if not required, only to show their power: DHC

03-10-2007 -COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS Vs. MANOJ SHARMA AND ANOTHER – An unlawful assembly is unlawful assembly irrespective of the fact whether the people have assembled for a good cause or a bad cause. Neither there is a golden scale of quantum of force to be used, nor such a yardstick can be laid down by the Courts. The quantum of force to be used has to be determined by the officer concerned, the Court cannot substitute its own opinion or decision about the quantum of force which should have been used – DHC

Govind Singh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Murder-The entire occurrence was in a spur of the moment. There was a quarrel between the father and daughter as to where the bulb is to be put on. In the sudden quarrel and in the spur of the moment, the appellant threw the chimney lamp on his daughter. The occurrence was sudden and there was no premeditation. The chimney lamp was burning there which the appellant had picked up and thrown on the deceased. Since the occurrence was in a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation, the act of the accused would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300.


Now coming back to the news item, it is clear from an impartial reading of the same that reference is made only to direct marketing agencies in general and not to any particular individual or concern. Of course, there is no need to refer to any person or concern specifically and it would be enough if the imputation is made in the form of an alternative or if the same is expressed ironically. The reference need not even be explicit and if the description and attendant circumstances suggest with a fair certainty, the identity of the person intended, the offence will be attracted. But at the same time, it is settled by now that the defamatory matter to be actionable, it must be such that it contains an imputation concerning some particular person or persons whose identity can be established.

In controversy as to whether the material complained of is defamatory or not, the Court will first decide, as a question of law [ RHC]

SECRETARY, N.C.E.R.T. Vs. DR. P. D. BHATNAGAR – The question whether an imputation or accusation is defamatory or not is a mixed question of law and fact. If there is a controversy as to whether the material complained of is defamatory or not, the Court will first have to decide, as a question of law. as to whether the said material is capable of being understood in a defamatory sense. If the court decides this question in the affirmative, it will then, and then only, proceed to determine whether, the said material containing a defamatory potential had in fact harmed the reputation of the complainant, within the ambit of the definition of such harm as given in Explanation 4. If the material is defamatory parse, for example, where the accused imputed commission of a felonious crime to the complainant, there is no difficulty in deciding the question of law mentioned above. The court will at once answer it saying that the imputation of commission of felony by the defendant is capable of being understood in no other but a defamatory sense. In such a situation, the court would be justified in straight away taking the parties to evidence with a view to determining as a question of fact, whether the said imputation had harmed the reputation of the complainant within the four corners of Explanation 4. If on the other hand, the words of the alleged imputation are ambiguous, it becomes a question of some difficulty for the court to decide whether those words are capable of being understood in a defamatory sense. If the court decides in the context of a particular complaint that the words in question are reasonably capable of bearing a defamatory meaning, it is only thereafter that it will address itself to the question of fact regarding harm to the reputation of the complainant [ RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT ]

Rama Rao And Anr. vs Narayan And Anr

“Originally the term “court” meant, among other meanings, the sovereign’s place; it has acquired the meaning of the place where justice is administered and, further, has come to mean the persons who exercise judicial functions under authority derived either directly or indirectly from the sovereign. All tribunals, however, are not courts in the sense in which the term is here employed, namely to denote such tribunals as exercise jurisdiction over persons by reason of the sanction of the law, and not merely by reason of voluntary submission to their jurisdiction. Thus, arbitrators, committees of clubs, and the like, although they may be tribunals exercising judicial functions, are not “courts” in this sense of that term. On the other hand, a tribunal may be a court in the strict sense of the term although the chief part of its duties is not judicial. Parliament is a court. Its duties are mainly deliberative and legislative; the judicial duties are only part of its function.”