Constitution bare act classification

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WRIT AND PIL

Differences between a Writ and PIL: #1. Writs are filed by institutions or individuals for benefit in their own cases, whereas, PIL is an application that is filed by any citizen for easing out any undue botheration or inconvenience faced by the public at large. Public interest litigation is not defined in any statute or any act. It has been interpreted by a judge to consider the intent of public at large. Following are the various areas where a PIL can be filed against State/Central Govt./Municipal authorities or any private party. (a) If there’s abuse of elementary human rights of the underprivileged. (b) If there’s inappropriate content or conduct of government policy. (c) To force municipal authorities to accomplish a public duty. (d) If there’s violation of religious rights or any basic fundamental rights. #2. Writs are issued by the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 and Article 139. Writs can be issued by High Court of the States under Articles 226. O...
Read more

Section 162 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) – Explained

Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence: This section protects the person making statement during police investigation under duress or inducement. The Code allows police officer to record statements of witnesses with a view to facilitating investigation of the offence. But if such statements are made under duress or inducement, they are rendered inadmissible in evidence because they cannot be said to be free and fair statements made voluntarily. As rightly pointed out by the Apex Court, the object of Section 162 is “to protect the accused both against overzealous police officers and untruthful witnesses.” It cannot be used for corroborating a witness but it can certainly be used to contradict him by a police statement. Where a person appears as a defence witness in a trial, his former statement made before the police cannot be used for contradicting him because it would be against the accepted norms of justice to allow a witness to be contradi...
Read more

IPC IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT

* mensrea * 1) Sherras v. De Rutzen 1.1 hobbs v/s winchester 2) Rex v. Jacobs 3) R. v. Tolson 4) R v prince 5) Brend v. Wood - unless the statute, either clearly or by necessary implication, rules out mens rea, as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind.’ 6) State v. Sheo Prasad 7) State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George * GeneralDefences * 8) State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa- S 76/79 9) State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik-- S 76/79 10) Tunda v. Rex (wrestling match) s 80 11) R v. Dudley and Stephens- Necessity S. 81 * S -84 Insanity * 12) R v Daniel Mcnaughten 13) Queen-Empress v. Kader Nasyer Shah 14) Lakshmi v. State 15) Ashiruddin Ahmad v. The King * S-86 ( Drunkness) * 16) Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of Maharashtra 17) Basdev v. State of PEPSU 18) Rex v. Meakin 19) Rex v. Meade 20) Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard * 96-106 * ...
Read more