4 Important Case Laws Reported in Criminal Law Journal 2018

1. Bidyadhar Samal v. State, 2018 Cri. L.J. 3303 

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S. 3(2)(v) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 - Rule 7 - Investigating Officer - Investigation was conducted by Sub-Inspector of police - Investigation of such offence is not permissible by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP); Crl. M.C. No. 2259 of 2006, Orissa High Court, 26-03-2018, S.K. Sahoo J.

2. State of Maharashtra v. Harishchandra Sadhuram Agarwal, 2018 Cri. L.J. 3306 

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 20 (1) - Cognizance & Trial of Offences - Written Consent - Once it is clear that the purport of written consent is distinct from that sanction for prosecution, the rigors in the former being of a lesser degree than that of the latter and the exact parameters laid down for testing sanction may not be made applicable to order according consent; Crl.A. No. 486, 534 & 533 of 1999, Bombay High Court, 06-03-2018 Bharati H. Dangre, J.

3. Aniket Subhash Tupe v. Piyusha Aniket Tupe, 2018 Cri. L.J. 3316

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 37, 12, 28(1) & 23(2) - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules (2006) - Rule 6(5) - Court in its discretion can allow evidence on affidavit and permit cross examination to test veracity of the evidence; W.P. No. 2938 of 2017, Bombay High Court, 22-03-2018, Anuja Prabhudessai, J.

4. Suren Gurung v. State of Sikkim, 2018 Cri. L.J. 3321

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 287, 337, 338, 304-A - Revisionist had failed or omitted to secure the vehicle safely while parking - The evidence produced clearly suggests that after the driver had parked the vehicle few passengers as well as the driver alighted from the vehicle. Therefore it cannot be said that the vehicle started rolling back as soon as it was parked. There was therefore a time gap between the parking, alighting of the driver and some of the passengers and the vehicle rolling back. Consequently, the alleged act of the driver cannot be held to be the proximate cause of death of one of the passengers or the injuries sustained by the other passengers - Parking a vehicle on an uphill road, the extent of its gradient or incline not being known would not drag the driver within the mischief of Section 287 IPC unless it is also proved that the driver failed to "rashly and negligently" secure the vehicle by taking proper care or made arrangement or omitted to secure the said vehicle "knowingly and negligently"; Crl. Rev.P. No. 03 of 2017, Sikkim High Court, 11-04-2018, Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post