Madhu Mittal
13 September 2015 at 09:55
Respected Sirs,
At thread http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Negotiable-instrument-ordinance-126555.asp#.VfPT8tKqqkp it is said now ordinance has lapsed. Please let me know now whether jurisdiction will be taken as1. ordinance or as 2. in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod versus State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Appeal No. 2287 of 2009) or 3. As earliar k.Bhaskarar. As per me it should be as per 2. in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod. I am giving you this trouble I want to get it confirmed from learned members before case presenting in the court.
I have also asked this on old thread, but no answer at thread: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/To-know-effectiveness-of-bill-no-151-of-2015-539906.asp#.VfUGsNKqqko
Thanks with Regards,
quick
01 September 2015 at 15:33
Sir in 498a case discharge petition, my lawer used the finding of the sessions judge in his anticipatory bail order that " as per the complaint and documents refereed there are no specific allegations as per theses petitioners so i inclined to grant Anticipatory bail" all the material part of investigation was completed as per the records hence i grant bail,
the sessions judge who rejected the revision in discharge petition has commented seriously that the order in the anticipatory bail was misconcieved by these petitioners,
is there any judgements in favour of the findings in an anticipatory bail can be looked in the trail
gaurishanker
31 August 2015 at 10:29
I want valuable opinions of my friends on following three counts:
(1)Whether panch witnesses of a search carried out by CBI can asked questions during the course of search to the persons present on the spot of search.I am of the opinion that panchas are there only to hear and see the proceedings and as soon as they start questioning they loose their identity as panch and become a police officer.I have follwing two citations which are too old and I want a fresh judgement on this count:
(i)Naginlal Nandlal Vs State of Gujarat1961(2)Gujatat LR 664,(ii)Omarji Vs State AIR1963Guj 145,1963(2)CrLJ14
(2)I am of the opinion that when the place of purposed search is a public place and there are so many persons who can be called for being a panch witness the CBIshould have called these persons instead of managing government officers of various department a day before the search.Panch must be from the local locality.
(3)The sanctioning authority for prosecution under The P C Act,1988 have no authority to revised its earlier sanction order without assigning any valid reason.
Mahi Juyal
17 August 2015 at 11:40
Dear Sir,
I had filed an application u/s 156(3) against 5 persons. CJM considered the same and case filed u/s 302 of IPC. But police filed an FR and closed the case. Later, CJM also accepted the FR. Now I have applied to reconsider it in the DJ court . But now the opposite party filed an application before the DJ to make us(complainant) a party in this case also. Is there any judgement which clearly says that complainant can not be made party. Please share the same, if possible.
Thanks,
Mahi Juyal
Yogesh
16 August 2015 at 15:35
F. I. R was registered against accused under sec 324 of I. P.c but their is serious injury to victim like 326 of I. P. C
Can magistrate having power to give directions to police add sec 326 of I. P.c under sec 156(3)of crpc
surjit singh
13 August 2015 at 08:18
Beside a residence in a purely residential area there existed a industrial plant using generator set gor cutting scrap materials and also at times use to burn plastic wastes. My brother approached the Pollution Control Board in 2013. The Board took the matter and issue show cause notice and ultimately on 27.7.15 passed an order restricting the operation of the unit under section 31A of Air(prevention and control of pollution) ACT 1981. During the proceeding before the pollution board new indistrial small unit rose on the left and behind of a colour manufacturing unit and a saw mill. Both the units are using heavy machinery with gererator set creating loud noise. The earlier unit against which the Pollution Board passed the aforesaid order is still in operation and new unit has come out on the left and behind of the residence.
My question whether the SDO with application under 133(1)(b) cr.p.c. be approached or again the Pollution Board should be approached.
ravi
07 July 2015 at 20:56
Respcted sir,
jan 2011 mein kuch log mere office pe drink kar faaltu ladai jhagda kar rahe the, jinko m pehle se jaanta tha, lekin bahut zayda hone per gusse mein maar pitayi ho gayi, jisme usko chot bhi lag gayi... usne kuch logo ko saath le jaa kar poloce report kar diya to meri police station se hi 323 mein jamanat ho gayi. lekin ussne baad mein apporoch lagwa kar 5000 chinne ka 392 bhi court mein lagwa diya, ab uuse mera compromise ho gya hai, magar court secase kaise khatam hoga? kindly help
Rakesh
05 July 2015 at 12:12
Now where should i complaint...LICHFL or court or police.
if police, near my place of residence or near property.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Cr.P.C.sec 397
NBW issued against accused.. I filed application for cancelling NBW..JMFC rejected my application.. Can i go in revision against the said order