m.v.prabhakar
01 July 2016 at 12:11
As per Criminal Manual of CBI investigation has to be entrusted to Inspector and above only in case of cases involved PCA by SP.
After the investigation by the inspector final report is to be submitted to SP to accept or reject.
My querry is
1. Who has to sign the charge sheet when it is submitted to the court? is the inspector or SP or any authority above Inspector?
2. If the investigation was done by two IOs then is it necessary that both the IOs to sign the charge sheet that is to be submitted before the CBI court.
3. If the charge sheet signed by the second IO says he had relied on the investigation made by his predecessor while deposing as as PW then please tell can the charge sheet be treated as defective.How to handle this issue.
Greatful if the expert views is provided on the above questions with proper backup.
regards
prabhu
m.v.prabhakar
11 December 2015 at 13:08
In the charge sheet prosecution mentioned sections like 120B,420,467,471 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2). After an argument on charge prosecution proposed only 120B and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2). However while framing charges judge had all the charges as mentioned in the charge Sheet.
My querry is
1. Can the Judge add more charges beyond what has been mentioned by prosecution.
2. If yes,is the judge supposed to give the reasoning and facts for additional charge?
3.While pointing out on illegal sanction on the face it based on the relied upon document, Judge had ignored the observation and mentioned that if two views are there the views of the prosecution will prevail at the time of charge. IS he correct.
In the ruling of a four-Judge Bench of The Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla v. State Through C.B.I.,1980 Supplementary SCC 92 the trial court to consider the material placed by the accused to be considered. Kindly tell me even as on date this ruling holds good.
Shall be grateful and obliged for an appropriate reply.
m.v.prabhakar
03 November 2012 at 13:31
SC issued Procedure in K.V.Jankiraman Case AIR 1991 SC 2010, making it clear that vigilance clearance for promotion may be denied only in three cases. Out of which relevant for the query is " Government Servant in respect of whom PROSECUTION FOR CRIMINAL CHARGE IS PENDING"
I seek opinion from the Ld. experts, what it means and at what stage in the criminal case, this procedure can be invoked for denying the promotion.
Can our experts elaborate this point and provide any case law on this point.
Shall be obliged for the reply.
Regards
Prabhu
m.v.prabhakar
24 January 2012 at 20:23
Dear Experts
Pl. guide me on
Is the Guideline mentioned in the SC judgement "State of Haryana And Ors Vs Bhajan Lal And Ors" on 21st November 1990 on exercising the extra ordinary powers under Article 226 or the inherent powers u/s 482 of CrPC is still holds good.
Is there any subsequent judgements either fine tuning the guidelines further or negating the said judgement. If pl. provide the citations.
In addition to the above, kindly clarify is the conspiracy on murder should be distinguished from economic offence. Why the conspiracy citation of murder case is used for economic offence also, mostly for rejecting the plea of the accused. In my opinion both are different.
Regards
prabhakar
Anonymous
08 January 2012 at 16:27
Dear Experts,
Can a revision under 397 is permitted for the charges imposed under sec 120B,420,467,468,471 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PCA.
Initially prosecution pleaded for 120B and 13(1)(d) and later confined to 13(1)(d) during the stage of final argument. However judge has imposed all the sections as mentioned in the charge sheet ignoring the Spl.PP claim and of course the accused. At the time of argument Spl. PP mentioned only two sections and the argument of accused however was restricted to only those two sections.No defense was made to other sections/nor opportunity was given to the accused for the other sections.
- Can the judge is right enough in imposing any other sections other than those demanded by Spl.PP.
-Position of accused on this(when no opportunity was given to the other charges not demanded by Spl.PP) under 397.
Any other recourse other than 397 and
what next after 397.
Regards
Prabhakar
-
m.v.prabhakar
15 October 2011 at 20:13
Shall be obliged, for the following clarification by any learned experts.
1. Is it necessary that sec 120B of IPC should always be associated with any other punishable sections like 420, 468, 471 etc.,either at the time of framing of charge or at later date by judge.
2. Can the Sec 120B of IPC be singularly be associated with 13(1)(d) of PCA.
3. Can the prosecution seek charges only under 120B and 13(1)(d). If so, can it sustain during framing of charges in view of conflict on minimum terms of punishment mentioned in these two.
m.v.prabhakar
12 September 2011 at 14:09
Since it was not responded in the forum section, I seek the advice of the experts in this issue. Though it appears to be academic it needs expert opinion.
Shall be obliged, for the following clarification by any learned experts.
1. Is it necessary that sec 120B of IPC should always be associated with any other punishable sections like 420, 468, 471 etc.,
2. Can the Sec 120B of IPC be singularly be associated with 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act.
3. If the answer to the S.No 2 is affirmative then my question is based on 120B and 13(1)(d) of PCA. These sections are reproduced for your immediate reference.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either descripttion for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
Section 13(2) in The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Q1. Is the PCA is considered as a part of IPC though it is a separate Act as it was carved out of IPC for the purpose of 120B.
Q2. Since Sec 120B of IPC talks about the offences under this code (which is underline and coloured above) can we conclude that only 120B and 13(1)(d) can not co-exist with out any other sections of IPC like 420, 471 etc.,
Q3. As the punishment of imprisonment under PCA is not less than one year which is contradictory to the minimum punishment u/s 120B of IPC (death,2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards) can the charges u/s 120B of IPC be survive.
Regards
Prabhu
m.v.prabhakar
06 September 2011 at 21:17
Shall be obliged, for the following clarification by any learned experts.
1. Is it necessary that sec 120B of IPC should always be associated with any other punishable sections like 420, 468, 471 etc.,
2. Can the Sec 120B of IPC be singularly be associated with 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of corruption Act.
3. If the answer to the S.No 2 is affirmative then my question is based on 120B and 13(1)(d) of PCA. These sections are reproduced for your immediate reference.
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.
Section 13(2) in The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988
(2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Q1. Is the PCA is considered as a part of IPC though it is a separate Act as it was carved out of IPC for the purpose of 120B.
Q2. Since Sec 120B of IPC talks about the offences under this code (which is underline and coloured above) can we conclude that only 120B and 13(1)(d) can not co-exist with out any other sections of IPC like 420, 471 etc.,
Q3. As the punishment of imprisonment under PCA is not less than one year which is contradictory to the minimum punishment u/s 120B of IPC (death,2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards) can the charges u/s 120B of IPC be survive.
Regards
Prabhu
Anonymous
04 May 2011 at 11:50
An agreement to sale (ATS) was executed in Tamil Nadu by six legal heirs of the property (Located in Chennai) on a stamp paper of Rs. 20, purchased by our father on 18th May 2010, after six years of his death with two prospective buyers. Our mother died before my father died.
A Token amount was given to all the legal heirs and it was stated in the ATS. It was further stated that the purchaser has to pay the balance amount in equal share to all the vendors and get it registered with in 90 days from the date the last vendor signing the ATS as the vendors are signing the ATS on the different date due to the fact some of them are residing out side the state of Tamil Nadu but with in India. The last vendor signed the ATS on 12-06-2010. Accordingly the performance should have taken place on 12-09-2010.
On the due date in spite of various assurance given by the buyers the sale could not be done even today ie 04-05-2011. Buyers are giving lame excuses and trying to delay the issue. Recently they had told that instead of sale deed they prefer to go on power of Attorney basis to avoid stamp duty etc., followed by sale deed and to show less amount of sale consideration. From this it is clear they are the genuine buyers instead brokers looking for a hike in the price and to sell later.
Since the forfeiture clause was not mentioned , they had not come forward to take back the advance money. On our enquiry, they insisted that they are interested in purchase and as per the law of land (TN) the ATS is valid for three years though for specific 90 days is mentioned. Neither he is allowing for a new buyers to come.
Shall be grateful if the clarification is provided on the following quarries which is roaming in my mind.
1. Is the ATS is still valid even after the expiry of 90 days.
2. Under which Law the indirect assumption of validity of three years of ATS is applicable as conveyed by the buyer.
3. Can they prevent the new buyers and create problem at the time of registration
4. Are we bound to return the Advance money though the forfeiture clause is not there. We are interested for the specific performance even today as per the ATS. Can we take legal action against the buyers on specific performance.
5. Since they are not demanding the advance money how to pay them. Is it to thro court or any other alternative is available.
Member Strength 9,46,618 and growing..
© 2024 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Charge sheet
Sir
Kindly give your expert opinion on the following.
1. A person's name is appearing in FIR, Can his name be dropped in charge sheet with out assigning any reasons.
2.Similarly, can a person's name be added in the charge sheet whose name is not appearing in FIR.
3. Can a supplementary charge sheet be filed with addition /Deletion of accused and new offences.
Shall be grateful for the reply
regards
prabhu