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.
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.
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.3 SECTION X S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Writ Petition(s)(Criminal) No(s). 154/2019 […]
Calcutta High Court declined to allow any major action against the errant police officers apart from appointing one man Commission to inquire the Howrah Court Violence and directed home department not to assigned any official work which may influence the inquiry.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy 35th President of the United States May 29, 1917-November 22, 1963 President John F. Kennedy died on 22 November 1963. 1300 PM Autopsy Report of President John F. Kennedy […]
(1967) AIR(Bombay) 96 : (1966) 68 BomLR 321 : (1967) CriLJ 427 : (1966) ILR(Bombay) 839 BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIVISION BENCH ( Before : Palekar, J; Naik, J ) GAJANAN VISHWANATH KETKAR […]
BOMBAY HIGH COURT DIVISION BENCH ( Before : Palekar, J; Naik, J ) ANANT JANARDHAN KARANDIKAR — Appellant Vs. STATE — Respondent Decided on : 02-08-1965 Constitution of India, 1950 – Article […]
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.
Supreme Court withdrew protection given to Mr. Rajeev Kumar, former Commissioner of Police, Kolkata, vide order dated February 05, 2019 restraining the CBI from arresting him and thereby
Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Another, and Dilawar Balu Kurane Vs. State of Maharashtra, held.. In Prafulla Kumar Samal (supra), the scope of Section 227 […]
A. Crime Against Women – related Acts B. Crime Against Children – related Act C. Crime Against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes – related Acts D. Offences against State – related Acts […]
The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) […]
Process was not issued against the opposite parties under any of the penal provision of the Act nor was any prayer made for issue of summons under any section of the Act […]
West Bengal Act 9 of 1972 [4th May, 1972.] Assent of the President was first published in the Calcutta Gazette, Extraordinary, of the 4th May, 1972. An Act to provide for special […]
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
HMC sweeper was abducted by advocates inside the court premises, police rescued him: Read FIR dated 24.04.2019
In connection with the Howrah Court violence, one Debasish Panja lodged an FIR by saying that he was abducted by advocates on 24.04.2019 at 5.00 PM and taken inside the Civil Court […]
100 mistakes made the complaint null: Secretary of The Howrah Criminal Bar Library lodged FIR on 24.04.2019
The FIR lodged by the Secretary of the Howrah Criminal Bar Library is contradictory in view of the other connected FIRs filed by the security guards and by one Asish Kr Dinda(Advocate). […]
A violent mob of lawyers in their court uniform attacked Sree Summit Halder around 2.00 PM on 24.04 2019, while he was reporting for ABP Ananda from HMC area, on the pretext […]
TMC affiliated HMC workers union lodged FIR against Howrah Criminal Court Bar Association for vandalizing HMC departments
On 24.04.2029, the president of the HMC workers union, Shree Guru Charan Chatterjee lodged an FIR, inter alia mentioning that some unidentified advocates while parking their motorbikes at the HMC premises, started […]
24th April 2019 – In her complaint, Smt Rajarshi Dutta(OC Howrah Thana), inter alia complained that advocates of Howrah District Court illegally assembled in front of HMC gate, blocked the road and […]
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 ]
“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.”