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.”
Accused No.1 Pragyasingh Chandrapalsingh Thakur @ Swami Purna Chetnanand Giri, No.4 Major Ramesh Shivji Upadhyay, No.5 Sameer Sharad Kulkarni, No.6 Ajay @ Raja Eknath Rahirkar, No.9 Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit, No.10 Sudhakar Udaybhan Dhar Dwivedi @ Swami Amrutanand Dev Tirth and accused No.11 Sudhakar Onkarnath Chatruvedi are hereby discharged from the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4), 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999. They are also discharged from the offences punishable under section 17, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as well as offence punishable under section 3, 5 and 25 of Arms Act 1959.
Offence of Murder – In view of sudden fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased-Soman. Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death. Thus, the death of Soman is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.
M.S. SHERIFF Vs. THE STATE OF MADRAS AND OTHERS -The criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the Civil and Criminal Courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment – SUPREME COURT 
Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.
(i) Mere delay in Despatch of FIR to magistrate is not a circumstance, which can throw out the prosecution case entirely. [Pala Singh & vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 2679] (ii) The […]
Wherever there is inordinate delay in completing criminal investigation, such delay would provide ground for quashing the FIR
Wherever there is inordinate delay on the part of the investigating agency in completing the investigation, such delay, ipso facto, would provide ground for quashing the First Information Report or the proceedings […]
Bengal Act 12 of 1932 [20th October, 1932.] An Act to provide for suppressing the terrorist movement in Bengal. Whereas it is expedient to make special provisions for the purpose of suppressing […]
in India where the offence under section 124A of the Penal Code should be construed with reference to the words used in that section. They also added :- “The word ‘sedition’ does […]
Case Laws : (1) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2) Shiv Kumar Vs. Hukam Chand and Another (3) Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma Vs. State (NCT […]
Regulator: The Petroleum and Explosives Safety Organization (PESO) Its headquarter at Nagpur and it has a network of 5 Circle offices, 18 Sub-circle offices, FRDC and Departmental 5 Testing Station. Under its […]
Rape is a violent act and may be committed by a stranger, friend or an acquaintance. Rape causes extreme emotional and personal injuries as well as physical injuries which are often quite […]
An act does not make a person guilty without a guilty mind (Actus Non-Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea) and the crime is not committed if the mind of such person is […]
Testimony of a victim of sexual assault has to be treated at par with the testimony of an injured witness
The law with regard to the appreciation of the testimony of a prosecutrix is well-settled. In State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain, it was held that the testimony of a victim […]
The Rajasthan High Court in Anil Kumar and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan, (1992) CriLJ 3637 , while dealing with an identical issue, in Paragraph No. 13 held as follows:– “13. The […]
Calcutta High Court Bimaladak And Ors. vs State Dated: 8 October, 1996 Bench: S Mookherjee, R Bhattacharyya JUDGMENT R. Bhattacharyya, J. 1. The point came to be debated at the bar is […]
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) […]
Supreme Court while considering the constitutionality of MCOCA insofar as it dealt with insurgency on the ground of want of legislative competence and repugnancy with UAPA a subsequent central enactment. While upholding […]
Love Jihad is not ‘love’ but prominently religious and under the pretext of love, there are deceitful conversion: Kerala High Court
SHAHAN SHA. A. AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF KERALA-Inter-religious marriages, arising out of love affairs or otherwise, are to be recognized and promoted. To solemnize such marriages, there need not necessarily be any conversion of one party to the marriage from one religion to another. If a boy or girl believes that a marital union is not possible without the other party to love converting to his or her religion, it is his or her faith.