436 cr p c

Bail in bailable offence- procedure of -if the accused is prepared to give bail,the police officer or the court is bound to release him on such terms as to bail as may to be reasonable-Right of claiming trial in a bailable offence is an absolute and indefeasible right -Words of sec.436 are imperative and thereis discretion in granting the bail in bailable offence?

sec.378(i) &(iii)cr p c

sec.378(i)&(iii)(After Amendment of Year 2005)-order of acquittal passed by a magistrate in a cognizable and non-bailable offence -Appeal against by complainant in sessions court lie or not ?

SEC.156(3) CR PC

Criminal complaint alongwith application u/s. 156(3)-Conclusion of magistrate that police inquiry was not requried in this case -He directed to complainant for examination of himself and his witnesses -whether any illegality committed ?

S 201 IPC

Can someone furnish me the following citation (ENTIRE JUDGEMENT)

2007(2)MLJ(Cri) 1907 Mad Ramasamy & others V/s State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police CCIW(gd) CUDDALORE

attempt to murder

Dear friends,
I would like to seek your valuable advice on following matter:-
My father & mother were attacked with iron rods & lathis when they tried to rescue the neibour's 20 year son from a planned attack by other neighbours to kill him.My father & mother only tried to rescue him & not retaliated, but suffered severe injuries on head & a fracture on my father's hand. They were immediately hospitalised & with god's grace their life is now out of danger after stayiny 03 days in ICU. Based on medical report, a charge sheet has been filed against the attachers under section 307. But the police has not arrested them even when 12 days have passed. From sources, we come to know that the policeman has been bribed with RS. 01 Lakh for not arresting them. I request all members to provide me the legal advice and my future course of action. Looking forward for a valuable advice...Surender

realize fine

An accused is convicted with fine by the lower court u/s138 of NI Act, and he filed revision in hjgh court against the decision.Mean While the accused died.Is there any provision to realize fine from his property or any precedent cases?

guidance in a case

Jayasthan is a state in the Indian Union. Raj Prakash is the Chief Minister of the state. Mrs. Vandana Verma is a member of the Jayasthan Legislative Assembly. Though Mrs. Vandana Verma is member of the ruling party, she is a strong critic of the ruling party.


In April 2002 the state witnessed large scale communal riot. According to the news paper reports the riot was the result of a planned scheme implemented under the leadership of a religious fundamentalist group known as ‘Black Tigers’. Certain newspapers published the allegation that the Government had ignored the police intelligence reports about the illegal activities of ‘Black Tigers’, submitted in January 2002. The Opposition parties strongly criticized the inaction of the Government in preventing the riot and demanded the resignation of the Chief Minister.


On 8-9-2002 Vandana Verma informed the media persons that she had collected clear evidence regarding the failure of the State Government in performing the constitutional duty of maintenance of law and order. On 9-9-2002 while participating in a discussion in the Legislative Assembly Mrs. Vandana Verma quoted a report submitted by the Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) to the Chief Secretary of the State on 16-1-2002. In the report it was stated that the fundamentalist group ‘Black Tigers’ had chalked out a plan for promoting enmity and hatred between different religious groups in the State. It was suggested that the activities of nearly 200 black listed persons should be closely watched. The name and address and other details were included in the report. The names of two ruling party M.L.A' s were included in the black list. Two ruling party M.L.A s Mr. Sham Manohar and Mr. Jit Kumar strongly denied the allegation against them and alleged that the report of the Inspector General (Intelligence) was not genuine. According to them report was a document fabricated by Mrs. Vandana Verma. However, the Chief Minister confirmerd the genuineness of the report.


After the discussion Vandana Verma left the Legislative Assembly Complex and proceeded towards the Legislator's Hostel in a car. However, on the way the police stopped her car and she was arrested by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.


On 9-9-2002 Vandana Verma was produced before the First Class Judicial Magistrate and an F.I.R. was filed stating that she was accused of offence under Section 5 of Official Secrets Act.


During police investigation no evidence was received other than the fact that Mrs. Vandana Verma has received an intelligence report, which was a secret document. However on, 12-11-2002 police forwarded the final report and the charge was framed against her, for the commission of offence under Section 5 (2) of the Official Secret Act 1923.


On 20-11-2002 Vandana Verma filed a petition before the High Court of Jayasthan for quashing the Final Report of Police and thus charges against her, excercising the powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner contended that the criminal case against her was politically motivated. It was further contended that since she had the privileges under Art. 194 (2) of the Constitution, no action could be taken against her.


One the same day a writ petition was filed by Vandana Verma challenging the constitutional validity of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1923 on the ground that the provision is against the basic concepts of democracy including "Rule of Law", "Open Government", "Freedom of Information" and "Freedom of Press". It was specially contended that Section 5 violates Art 14, Art 19 (1) (a) and Art 21 of the Constitution.


The single Judges referred the petition to the Chief Justice stating that the issues involved in the petitions may be decided by a larger bench. On 29-11-2002 Chief Justice constituted a Full Bench for the adjudication of the petitions filed by Mrs. Vandana Verma on 20-11-2002.

what points can be

defamation

Ms Roma V. Oriental Television Inc

Dotted with a plethora of small hills covered by thick forests, the district of Phoolwadi attracts tourists from distant places. It provides thrilling scenic beauty and being away from the bustle of modern life, is ideal for holidaying. Small lodges and motels have come up; though restful and comfortable, they are very isolated. Some of these dwellings are deep inside the thick forests. The location and the resulting influx of tourists regularly to Phoolwadi have come as a boon to the professional dacoit Kalikaran. The tourists are easy targets for his typical and daring operations. Kalikarna shot into the lime light when he held Ms Roma, who was recently decorated with the 'Charming Bride India' title at a national beauty contest, captive in suite no. 3 of Triveni Cottages. He was holded up in the cottage along with the hostage. The high drama ended in an operation by the National Commandos at the end of seven days which led to the arrest of Kalikaran. One of the Commandos, who was shot at by Kalikaran, succumbed to his injuries. Kalikaran was convicted and sentenced to death. The death sentence was confirmed by Higher Courts and his mercy petition was rejected.


Being alone in the prison and awaiting death, Kalikarana recounted the 'hostage drama'. He wrote a book giving a detailed account of those seven days, Kalikaran also disclosed how Miss. Roma, during the period of captivity, was drawn towards him and developed a 'fatal attraction'.


A leading television channel, Oriental Television Inc. (OTV) approached Kalikaran for his consent to shoot a serial based on the book. Kalikaran agreed to the request and accordingly after his execution, a popular serial titled "The Bride and the Beast" was shot with look alikes. The serial became a hit particularly among the teenagers.


Aggrieved by the public disclosure, Miss Roma filed a suit against OTV claiming compensation and damages.


what points can be raised in favour of plaintiff
and in favour of defandant

Section 138 NI Act

Summons is issued aganist me to appear before the Magistrate court for the offence under Section 138 NI Act, do i have to take bail????

cheques acquired with out the consent of drawer