Dr.Gaurang N. Gandhi
08 May 2010 at 22:01
my client is a transport owner.
some person had stoled one truck with loaded goods total worth Rs.11,32,000/-
He was arrested by Police. then after one of his friend had given a cheque worth rs 7,00,000/- regarding surety against the said theft. after passing of time the transporter had deposited the said cheque in bank.
the cheque was bounced with insufficient balance.
can we proceed under NI Act?
We have already issued a statutory notice to the guarantor....
what should be next?
Apurva Kumar
08 May 2010 at 17:17
Anybody having full text or soft copy of Kasab judement which was recently pronounced!!!!!!
vinod bansal
07 May 2010 at 23:39
R/Members
kindly enlighten me regarding law/provisions for prohibition of cow slaughtering in Haryana and what is provision regarding prohibition of slaughtering on the day of Mahavir jayanti in Hasryana. Thanx
Krishna R Bhat
26 April 2010 at 15:43
There are some prosecution cases launched long back i.e. more than 15-20 years old. The cases have been trnsferred to Long Pending Register long back since the accused are not traceble. In this circustance, whether the SPP who is dealing with these cases can revive the cases by giving applications to the Court and requesting to issue W/A even in the absence of relevant requisition for the same?. Please clarify.
Mr Sreejit
24 April 2010 at 19:53
RTI APPLN TO KOLKATA POLICE FEB 03 2010
AND
ANOTHER APPLN TO HIM DTED MAR 03 2010
WERE MERGED MINGLED TANGLED AND THE REPLY WAS RECD ON MAR 18 2010 WITH AN 'ESSAY' TYPE AND PARAGRAPH TYPE 'WRITE-UPS' WHERE THE INFORMATION I REQUIRED IS A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL RECORD, ALSO THE INFO. GIVEN IN THIS FORM IS IRRELEVANT, UNREAL, FABRICATED AND INCOMPLETE.
I APPLIED TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND WHILE WAITING FOR THE REPLY ASO APPLIED TO THE COMMISSIIONER STATING THE WILFUL DELAY CAUSED IN REPLY AND IRRELEVANT REPLY SENT TO ME AFTER THE LAPSE OF 30 DAYS.
EVEN THIS DOES NOT EVOKE ANY REACTION EVEN AFTER LAPSE OF 14 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF MY APPLN TO COMMISSIONER.
SHOULD I STILL WAIT WITH PATIENCE OR FILE IT TO CIC OR CAN I GO TO NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, BECAUSE WBHRC IS A FAILURE TO THE RTI I SENT TO THEM WHICH IS ALSO NEARLY 2 MONTHS OLD.
ALL MY HOPE IN STATE ADMINISTRATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUDICIARY IS GONE.
CAN I APPLY TO UN OR ANY INTERNATIONAL FORUM FOR JUSTICE .
AFTERALL JUSTICE HAVE NO BOUNDS.
WHATSAPP 91-8075113965
04 April 2010 at 10:35
I am appearing for the accused in a narcotic case and it is posted for final hearing.
Facts of the case is as follows :
Please guide me .
Offence u/s 20 (b) NDPS ACT.
ALLEGATION :-
Accused was found carrying 36 gms of ganja, in a plastic carry bag and he was arrested in a public place, on a casual search by the excice officials. ( no prior information).
Prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, and marked 6 documents.
Pw1 and pw4 - arresting officers
Pw2 and pw3- independent witnesses, ( not supported prosecution story ) but they were cross-examined by the prosecutor, without declaring hostile. is it permissible ?
Pw5 – investigation officer
Documents :-
P1 – seizure mahassr
P2 –arrest memo
P3-consent letter u/s 50 ndps by accused , to be searched by the arresting officers themselves( stating that there is no need of magistrate or gazette officers)
P4-occurance rport
P5-property list
P6-chemical analysis report
P7-inspection memo
M.O WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT, NOR MARKED.
BUT, THE PROPERTY LIST SHOWS THAT IT WAS SENT TO THE COURT, AND THE COURT HAS RECEIVED IT ON THE SAME DAY…..WHETHER ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT IN THIS REGARD ?
Grounds, I believe worth noting are :-
NO M.O WAS MARKED
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ARE NOT OF THE LOCALITY
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, NOT SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION STORY
NO ENDORCEMENT IN THE ARREST MEMO , THAT ARREST OF THE ACCUSED WAS INFORMED TO HIS RELATIVES, BUT IT IS THERE IN THE P7 INSPECTION MEMO
PW 1 AND 4 SAYS THAT THERE IS NO COLUMN IN P2 FOR THAT. THAT’S WHY A SPECIAL P7 WAS PREPARED. BUT, AS PER DK BASU V/S UNION OF INDIA, IS IT NOT MANDATORY, TO INCLUDE IT , IN THE ARREST MEMO , ITSELF ?
NO REPORT U/S 57 IS MARKED. BUT SIMPLY STATED IN THE MAHASSAR THAT AFTER COMPLYING SEC 57, PROPERTY AND MAHASSAR WERE SENT TO COURT. IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
NO FOREWARDING NOTE WAS MARKED.BUT, ANALYST REPORT IS MARKED . IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
I am told that in NDPS CASES, there a lot of citations that before conducting search of an accused. The arresting officers has to offer their personal search to the accused, to avoid implanting of contraband articles.please give me any one of such citations .
Accused has signed in p3 consent letter. But, but p2 arrest memo bears accused “s thumb impression , not signature ! its legal consequence ?
Is sec 50 mandatory in cases or consent letter from accused , while in custody is sufficient ?
Ref : 2002(2)KLT 211 (SC)
PLEASE GIVE MAXIMUM CITATIONS FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS .
RESPECTFULLY,
SD/-
SALILKUMAR.P
ADVOCATE
THALASSERY
09447536929
advocatesalil@gmail.com
WHATSAPP 91-8075113965
04 April 2010 at 10:32
I am appearing for the accused in a narcotic case and it is posted for final hearing.
Facts of the case is as follows :
Please guide me .
Offence u/s 20 (b) NDPS ACT.
ALLEGATION :-
Accused was found carrying 36 gms of ganja, in a plastic carry bag and he was arrested in a public place, on a casual search by the excice officials. ( no prior information).
Prosecution has examined 5 witnesses, and marked 6 documents.
Pw1 and pw4 - arresting officers
Pw2 and pw3- independent witnesses, ( not supported prosecution story ) but they were cross-examined by the prosecutor, without declaring hostile. is it permissible ?
Pw5 – investigation officer
Documents :-
P1 – seizure mahassr
P2 –arrest memo
P3-consent letter u/s 50 ndps by accused , to be searched by the arresting officers themselves( stating that there is no need of magistrate or gazette officers)
P4-occurance rport
P5-property list
P6-chemical analysis report
P7-inspection memo
M.O WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE COURT, NOR MARKED.
BUT, THE PROPERTY LIST SHOWS THAT IT WAS SENT TO THE COURT, AND THE COURT HAS RECEIVED IT ON THE SAME DAY…..WHETHER ACCUSED IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT IN THIS REGARD ?
Grounds, I believe worth noting are :-
NO M.O WAS MARKED
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES ARE NOT OF THE LOCALITY
INDEPENDENT WITNESSES, NOT SUPPORTED THE PROSECUTION STORY
NO ENDORCEMENT IN THE ARREST MEMO , THAT ARREST OF THE ACCUSED WAS INFORMED TO HIS RELATIVES, BUT IT IS THERE IN THE P7 INSPECTION MEMO
PW 1 AND 4 SAYS THAT THERE IS NO COLUMN IN P2 FOR THAT. THAT’S WHY A SPECIAL P7 WAS PREPARED. BUT, AS PER DK BASU V/S UNION OF INDIA, IS IT NOT MANDATORY, TO INCLUDE IT , IN THE ARREST MEMO , ITSELF ?
NO REPORT U/S 57 IS MARKED. BUT SIMPLY STATED IN THE MAHASSAR THAT AFTER COMPLYING SEC 57, PROPERTY AND MAHASSAR WERE SENT TO COURT. IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
NO FOREWARDING NOTE WAS MARKED.BUT, ANALYST REPORT IS MARKED . IS IT SUFFICIENT ?
I am told that in NDPS CASES, there a lot of citations that before conducting search of an accused. The arresting officers has to offer their personal search to the accused, to avoid implanting of contraband articles.please give me any one of such citations .
Accused has signed in p3 consent letter. But, but p2 arrest memo bears accused “s thumb impression , not signature ! its legal consequence ?
Is sec 50 mandatory in cases or consent letter from accused , while in custody is sufficient ?
Ref : 2002(2)KLT 211 (SC)
PLEASE GIVE MAXIMUM CITATIONS FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS .
RESPECTFULLY,
SD/-
SALILKUMAR.P
ADVOCATE
THALASSERY
Anonymous
19 March 2010 at 12:00
Business with a leading multinational necessitated giving blank cheques in advance for supplies, in 2003 the multinational company involved a multinational bank for its personal business advantage and all future transactions were routed through this multinational bank. The bank too insisted on 10 blank cheques of nationalised bank as security.
In 2005 business was closed and so was the bank account with the nationalised bank. The multinational company returned all the blank cheques in its custody but the bank failed to do so and said a particular amount was disputed. The discrepancies in account was brought to the notice of the multinational bank, negotiations failed and they deposited by filling the date and amount on one of the blank cheques in its custody in 2005. The cheque was returned with the remark 'Account Closed' and the bank intitated proceedings u/s 138.
The complainant bank failed to appear for cross examination and the cross was closed in 2009 and the bank has applied for revision in higher court.
Now the complainant bank has again deposited the second blank cheque in its custody for double the amount(most probably with interest)for recovery of the same amount for which trial is in progress and given a fresh notice u/s 138.
Is their any remedy for the accused. Can the accused lodge police complaint/FIR for harassment against the complaiant bank (if yes under which section) and or apply to court where the case is already in progress to restrain complainant from proceeding further (if us under which section).
Raj Kumar Makkad
18 March 2010 at 22:12
What are your views over this matter?
Once again the Maharashtra police has demonstrated its talent for putting its collective foot in its mouth. Last Saturday's announcement by the Anti-Terrorism Squad that it had not only caught two suspected terrorists but that these two had links to Pakistan and were about to bomb ONGC oil tanks,the Thakkar mall in Borivli and other vital installations has angered the Centre. The Union ministry of home affairs has ordered an inquiry into the "leak" of information to the media and demanded action against the officer involved. The Centre is also annoyed that it was kept out of the loop by the Maharashtra government, while "sensitive" information was being released to the media. This incident highlights yet again the inefficiency and factionalism which rules the Maharashtra police and the inability of home minister RR Patil to fix its deep and serious problems. The ATS has through its short life been known more for its grand pronouncements rather than any major breakthroughs and here also has shown that it is incapable of balancing its inherent desire for publicity with the interests of the nation.
In some senses, the Pune blasts at German Bakery earlier this year, the confusion over the attackers, and the lack of intelligence inputs from the central agencies to support the contentions made by the Maharashtra police may have triggered this desire to register a "victory" in the public eye. Yet, if the Mumbai terror attacks made anything clear it is that no local police force is equipped to tackle a major terrorist attack without help from the Centre and from intelligence agencies. The ATS itself suffered greatly during the 2008 attacks when it lost its leader Hemant Karkare.Charge was then handed back to current chief KP Raghuvanshi, who, interestingly, held the post before it was given to Karkare.
Many officers within the force are both media and politician-savvy and they know how to sound right in both quarters. This is no mean skill but has been developed it seems at the expense of real policing. It also seems incredible that the Maharashtra police is unable to fathom that terrorism is a major threat that this country faces and cannot be used as a ploy by ambitious or desperate police officers to try and score points over one another. The overhaul of the Maharashtra police is already long overdue. The state home ministry must now see whether its answer to the Centre can also trigger a cleanup.
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Superdarinama Draft
One thieft case after recovery of thieft article MM Court announced open court required superdari nama. Please send me standared superdarinama draft.
Thanks
A.K.Roy