Wearing of advocates’ gown is not compulsory, but optional, in courts other than Supreme Court or High Courts, as per the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India.
Default bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedures Code, 1973 (CrPC) can be granted to an accused based on an oral application alone, and no physical copy or written application is needed for seeking default bail, says High court of Kerala in a judgement in Akshay v State of Kerala [ 2023(1) KLT SN 44 (C No 38)].
The cognizance of the offence in a cheque dishonour case, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) can be taken by a court not inferior to a First-Class Judicial Magistrate upon a complaint in writing by the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, to be made within one month of the date on which the cause of action arises.
In a cheque dishonour case, the interim compensation can be directed to be paid only after the accused has pleaded not guilty as per section 143A (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).
In a recent judgement in Md. Asfak Alam v The State of Jharkhand, the Supreme Court (SC) re-issues directions to all courts in the country reiterating the directions already issued in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Another.
After the dismissal of anticipatory bail application by the High Court (HC), a petitioner cannot file a subsequent anticipatory bail application, pointing out changes in circumstances, before the Sessions Court (SC). This is what the High Court of Kerala directs in Bipin Sunny v State of Kerala [ 2023 (5) KHC 125].
Challans or Charge Sheets filed by police under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be put on public domain or website, says the Supreme Court in Sarav Das v Union of India [2023 (1) KHC 451 (SC)].
Deposit of a minimum 20% of the cheque amount when the appeal court considers an appeal of an accused person convicted for dishonour of cheque under Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is not an absolute matter, but an exceptional one, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Jamboo Bhandari v MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd.
An accused has the right to get copies of (or examine) the unmarked and unexhibited documents, which are not being relied on by the prosecution, in a criminal proceeding, as per the Supreme Court ( SC) judgement in V K Sasikala v State Rep. By Superintendent Of Police and some other related judgements.
The trial judge usually cannot examine any material produced by the accused at the time of charge framing or discharge of the accused, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of Orissa v Debendra Nath Padhi.