Statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence In the case of Utpal Das & Anr. V. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 6 SCC […]
Reforming Incarceration System to Eliminate the Use of Privately Operated Criminal Detention Facilities-EO of US President-26/01/2021
Policy. More than two million people are currently incarcerated in the United States, including a disproportionate number of people of color. There is broad consensus that our current system of mass incarceration imposes significant costs and hardships on our society and communities and does not make us safer. To decrease incarceration levels, we must reduce profit-based incentives to incarcerate by phasing out the Federal Government’s reliance on privately operated criminal detention facilities.
Rabindra Nath Roy death case to be freshly investigated by CBI-Final report of Siliguri Police doubted by Calcutta High Court
This court is of the view that Section 173(8) cannot prevent a Writ Court from passing further directions if the court deems it appropriate to do so in fit circumstances. Section 173(8) is premised on the action of the Officer-in-Charge of the concerned police station on obtaining further evidence after a final report of the investigation has been made. The scope of the provision is limited in operation and is dependent on the Officer chancing upon a piece of evidence after completion of investigation.
The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.
Rule 291(3)-Bombay Police Manual 3) The final report should be written up carefully by the officers incharge of the Police Station personally and should be accompanied by all the case papers numbered […]
It is strenuously urged that to consider a foreigner guilty under the Penal Code for an offence committed in India though attributable to him and to punish him therefor in a case where he is not corporeally present in India for the commission of the offence, would be to give extra territorial operation to the Indian Penal Code and that an interpretation which brings such extra-territorial operation must be avoided.
A conviction would be valid even if there is any omission or irregularity in the charge, provided it did not occasion a failure of justice. (2011) 1 SCALE 114 : (2011) […]
A person commits an offence if—
(a)the person holds another person in slavery or servitude and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is held in slavery or servitude, or
(b)the person requires another person to perform forced or compulsory labour and the circumstances are such that the person knows or ought to know that the other person is being required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
Hitesh Verma vs The State of Uttarakhand & Anr (05-11-2020) – Offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
The clear position therefore is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR.
Evidence Act-Section 137 does not say that such cross-examination has to be limited only to what has been stated by the prosecution witness in examination-in-chief. AIR 1961 SC 175 : (1961) 1 […]