Police Officer not to Register FIR on Offences under Drugs Act
Cognizance Of offence under Drugs & Cosmetics Act 1940 can't be taken based on Police Officer's complaint, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Rakesh Kumar v State of Bihar & Another.
Institutions not to Withhold Certificates in lieu of Dues
Educational institutions cannot withhold the educational certificates of students with respect to pending payment of fees or other dues, says the Madras High Court says in M Kesavan v The Principal and Others
Suicide due to Dowry Harassment u/s 498A & 304B IPC
Minor quarrels between spouses due to differences of opinion or sporadic instances of ill-treatment would not establish an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), says the High Court of Kerala in Sreekumar s/o Chellappan Chettiyar v State of Kerala [2024 (1) KLT 382] delivered on 4th January 2024.
Inquiry by Magistrate u/s 202(1) CrPC in Cheque Cases
In cheque cases filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), when the accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the court, an inquiry is to be conducted by the Magistrate under Section 202(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), to arrive at sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused and the Magistrate can dispense with the Section 202 (1) inquiry if the complainant files an affidavit in lieu of the inquiry, as per the Constitutional Bench judgement: In re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 NI Act).
SC Guidelines on Proving a Will
In proving a will, the Supreme Court(SC) has issued eight guidelines in Shivakumar and Others v Sharanabasappa and Others ( AIR 2020 SC 3102) to be followed by the courts.
Distinctions between Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution
The distinctions between Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have been clearly spelt out in the three-member Bench judgement of the Supreme Court (SC) in Radhey Shyam v Chhabi Nath. The SC, based on some survey, found that the distinction between the two jurisdictions stands almost obliterated in practice.
Use of Documents under RTI as Evidence in Courts
The Section 65 (f) of the IEA allows certified copies permitted under the IEA or by any other law in force in India to be treated as secondary evidence. The RTI Act falls within the ambit of "any other law in force in India.”
Therefore the certified copies obtained through the RTI Act can be treated as secondary evidence and can be admitted in court and they can be presumed to be true, unlike a private document.
Proving a Will when Attesting Witness is not Found
An instrument, such as a Will, mortgage deed, or gift deed, which needs to be compulsory attested as per law, shall not be used in evidence, unless one attesting witness has been called to the court for proving its execution, if the attesting witness is alive, living with in the sphere of the process of the court, and can give evidence, under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
How can Signature & Handwriting be Proved?
The signature and handwriting of a person can be proved in the court by different ways depending on the facts of each case, as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1882 (IEA)
Options a Magistrate has on Receipt of a Complaint
Five options available to a competent Judicial Magistrate on receipt of a written complaint, as elaborated in Biju Purushothaman v State of Kerala & Others, and reaffirmed in Manimekhala S v State of Kerala, are outlined in this write-up.
No Need to Register Corruption Case in all Cases of Malfeasance
A prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) need not be initiated In all cases of malfeasance or misfeasance, or wrong administration, or in all cases of loss caused to the government while discharging duty by public servants, says the High court of Kerala in Manimekhala S v State of Kerala.
VACB can Investigate Cases against Central Employees
The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) of Kerala State, has authority to investigate offences involving corruption that take place within the State, committed by a Central Government employee or a State Government employee, says the High Court of Kerala (HCK) in State of Kerala v Navaneeth Krishnan