//
archives

public prosecutor

This tag is associated with 16 posts

Defamation = Criminal Trial–Defamation of Public servant in respect of public function–Complaint before Sessions Judge by Public Prosecutor–If required to be signed by the Public servant also–Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898), ss.198 and 198-B. =The Public Prosecutor, Kanpur, filed a complaint in the Court of Session, Kanpur, charging the appellants with having published a news item which was false and defamatory of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. The complaint complied with the requirements of s. 198-B, Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellants contended that the complaint should have complied with the requirements of s. 198 of the Code also and, as it was 64 not signed by the Chief Minister, the Sessions judge had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Held, that it was not necessary for the Chief Minister also to sign the complaint filed by the Public Prosecutor. The nonobstante clause ” notwithstanding anything contained in this Code ” in sub-s. (1) of s. 198-B excludes the operation of the other provisions of the Code relating to initiation and trial of the offence of defamation, including s. 198. Sub-section (13) of s. 198-B which provides that the provisions of s. 198-B shall be in addition to and not in derogation of s. 198 merely preserves the right of the person defamed to file a complaint under s. 198. The two sections provide alternative remedies. The provisions in s. 198-B relating to the award of compensation to the accused in case of false and frivolous or vexatious accusation do not affect this conclusion. Normally it is the public servant who moves the Government for taking proceedings and under subs. (5) he is required to be examined as a witness to support the prosecution, and it cannot be said that he has no concern with the lodging of a complaint under s. 198- B. C. B. L. Bhatnagar v. The State, A.I.R. 1958 Bom. 196 and R. Sankar v. The State, I.L.R. (1959) Kerala 195, disapproved.

PETITIONER: P.C. JOSHI AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25/10/1960 BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. DAS, S.K. CITATION: 1961 AIR 387 1961 SCR (2) 63 ACT: Criminal Trial–Defamation of Public servant in respect of public function–Complaint before Sessions Judge by Public Prosecutor–If required to be signed by the … Continue reading

when to compound the offence?=the question of compounding the offences in respect of which the petitioner was convicted and sentenced before this Court does not arise at all because the corresponding criminal case was already disposed of finally. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner to do so is to be rejected even supposing that Section 326 IPC is compoundable.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.R.C.M.P.No.1835 of 2011 and bt 1-7-2011 Asi Balayya (A1)and others State of A.P.,rep. by P.P. and another Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T.PRASANNA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT: The revision petition is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against common judgment made … Continue reading

since the domestic violence case is quasi criminal one, if the respondent not appeared, then the court can set him exparte. no need to give warrants against him for securing his attendance as it is not compulsory, it is his option whether to contest or not to contest=However, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter without taking coercive steps for the appearance of the petitioners. If the petitioners chose not to represent in the matter, ex parte orders can be passed and only if they violate the orders, they can be proceeded under Section 31 of the Act as referred above.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Criminal Petition No.963 of 2008 08-07-2010 Valisetti Chandra Rekha. 2. Kota Satyanarayana Rao. The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 2. Kota Kamala Devi. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K.Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor :ORDER: Petitioners, who are respondent Nos.3 … Continue reading

there is only demand for payment of Rs.10,000/- and fan by A1, but there is no evidence to establish the harassment caused by A1 to the deceased in connection with the demand for payment of the said Rs.10,000/- and fan. Therefore, the prosecution could not establish that soon before the death of the deceased, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the appellant in connection with the demand for dowry.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.327 of 2002 15-07-2011 Alakunta Yadaiah 1.State of A.P.,through Public Prosecutor COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Smt.Vasundhara Reddy.C COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT :Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence passed by III-Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), at N.T.R. Nagar, L.B. Nagar,R.R.Dist, in S.C.No.351 … Continue reading

child abuse – acquitted =The accused was working as Teacher in a private school at Lingapur village, on 22.6.2002 during evening hours, the daughter of the defacto-complainant namely Tulasi informed her mother that the accused removed her underwear and inserted his pennies into her anus, as a result of which, she sustained bleeding injury to her private parts, thereafter the accused instructed the school attenders Smt.Mallamma and Chandrakala to wash the body and clothes of the victim. On 24.6.2002, the father of the victim and others questioned the accused about the incident, then the accused admitted his guilt but prayed not to give any report against him.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1416 of 2004 15-7-2011 Karri Simhachalam Naidu State of A.P.,rep. by P.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C.Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: The Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT: This revision has arisen out of concurrent findings recorded by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy district … Continue reading

The essence of the offence under Section 153-A of IPC is promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence etc. and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. The acts constituting this offence are promoting such enmity or doing such prejudicial acts by words either spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise. Thus, the emphasis is on the mode and the action by which attempt is made to promote on grounds of religion, race, place of birth , residence language, caste or community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony or feelings of enmity or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAMAN RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.4665 OF 1999 04/02/2000 Mohd.Khlid Hussain. petitioner State of rep., by P.P., Hyderabad. respondent Counsel for the petitioner:Mr. Mohd. Osman Shaheed. Counsel for the Respondent:The Public Prosecutor. :ORDER: Heard both sides. This petition under section 482 of CrPC seeks quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.230 of 1997 … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,438 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com