Anonymous
31 March 2011 at 09:07
sir,
In the FIR and during the whole investigation following sre missing. What is the effect-
1. Not mentioned any date on which the share certificate were handed over.
2. That the share certificate in question were handed over in four intervals in the period running from jan to december but the complaint failed to mentioned the specific date on which share certificate has been handed over and but was the value of the shares on the date of entrustment at first instance, in second instance and so on.
3. No name of witness is mentioned in the FIR.
Please guide by proving the latest judgement on the above stated facts because the accused persons are wrongly implecated by the complainant
Anonymous
31 March 2011 at 08:30
sir/madam. Is domestic violence act is compoundable, if so under what provision please give deatils about it. Thank u
varinder
30 March 2011 at 22:47
that i had lodged one complaint under 138 negotiable instrument act the accused were unable to appear in the court after the log time the court had declare him as proclamation as the accused had taken voluntarily retirement and i had came to know than i had send the order copy of proclamation to his department and asked not to pay him the pension until he appear before the honorable court from where he was proclamation but the department had refused to stop his pension know kindly guide what action is to be taken against said department
sureeli sharma
30 March 2011 at 16:41
There is no need to get confused between sections 55,57 I.P.C.Where on one hand Section 55 meant to convey that in case a person gets Life Imprisonment,it has to be for life and nothing like 14 yrs/20 yrs.It means that L.I can be commuted to any other form of punishment by the appropriate Govt. only if the accused has already undergone at least 14 years of Imprisonment ,so no commutation untill he has spent at least 14 yrs of imprisonment.
Now u must have seen in many of the provisions of I.P.C.that in such and such case the punishment will be half/one fourth of...etc of the prescribed punishment (for ex:refer section 116 i.P.C)so in such cases for the purposes of calculating the fractions in case of L.I.the time period to be assumed is for 20yrs.
kushal
30 March 2011 at 14:40
My father was a employee of the Rajasthan govenrment till June 2010.
In April 2007, he was allegely trapped while taking a bribe of Rs 5000.
After investigations the Anti Corruption Depatment approached his appointing authority for sanction of prosecution, which was denied by in June 2009.
Now three 6 months after his retirement, ACD hs again written to the appoiting authority to reconsider the decision.
the appointing authority has responded that since the person has retired, the government can not consider the request and ACD may take its own decision.
Based on the responce, ACD has now presented a chagesheet in the special anti corruption court.
My question is : Can this be challanged in the higher court since the appointing authority ahs denied permission and in caase yes are their any relavent cases that can be quoted.
Anonymous
30 March 2011 at 11:30
Can a regular bail be cancelled in case of IPC 354 if the accuse is not doing anything wrong and is not trying to influence any witnesses. What can be the grounds of cancellation. Is there any time limit within which the application of cancellation can be filed by the victim after the grant of the bail.
This is a flase case of 354. But the accuse is a family person and is in a very bad state financially and emotionally due to this case.
Shikha Garg
30 March 2011 at 11:29
Can a regular bail be cancelled in case of IPC 354 if the accuse is not doing anything wrong and is not trying to influence any witnesses. What can be the grounds of cancellation. Is there any time limit within which the application of cancellation can be filed by the victim after the grant of the bail.
This is a flase case of 354. But the accuse is a family person and is in a very bad state financially and emotionally due to this case.
V. Ramakrishna
30 March 2011 at 10:12
Dear Experts,,,
To me the Magistrat at Chennai , has given a split judgement in my case u/s
138 .I am the accused .
The cheque is from my PVT LTD company duely signed by me as Director of the PVT LTD company .In the compliant A1 is the Company ,A2 is myself .
The Complianant has not stated in any of the documents to whom the money was paid ,when the money was paid ,no supporting exibits produced,not even stated that signatory of the cheque ,i.e myself was in charge of day to day affires of the company , has got only the cheque and further states that cheque itself is coclusive proof of having commited a crime u/s 138.
leaving detailes of the judgement aside for the time ,judgemnt says
1) A1 is Acquitted .
2)A2 is guilty .with 1 year RI and fine of Rs 5000//
I have paid the fine and got bail .
I think I have got 30 days time for appeal.I strongly feel the judgement is wrong .
I am given to understand there is a recent Supreme court judgement on the legality of the above judgement or against it .
In any case I would be greatfull to get expert comments , whether my appeal
can set aside the judgement
I would also be greatful if the SC judement is uploaded , so that I may prepare the appeal correctly .
Regards
Ramakrishna.V.
Anonymous
30 March 2011 at 09:25
1) It has been said that a secnd wife cannot claim alimony for the husband but th children of the second wife can claim till they attain te age of majority as per the indian majority act ? any case laws ?
2) We all known that when a court gives any judgement the reason should be there but as far te SLP is consent i have heard that in SLP there is a law declared if th court gives the reason for dismissing the petition. so can we sy that if no reason is given thatwhy a SLP is dismissed than no law is decalred ?
Also if any case is dismissed in any court in india it has been said that doctrine of precedent is not applicable to that case because the case is dismissed & not in the favour of any one of th party ? Doctrine of precdent is not applicable ?
Thanks .
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
NI Act 138
In NI Act 138 I am Adv. for accused. I have crossed to the complainant. Then Complainant closed his evidence by filing Pursis. I also filed pursis by without examine any defence witness. Arguments of both sides also completed. today the matter is fixed for order. After then today complainant again filled some documents to fill the lacuna. Is it admissible? If no is there any citation to show to the court? Please help. Thank you frie