Latest news with #Cr.P.C.
Indian Express
3 days ago
- Indian Express
Electricity equipment theft: Six sentences of convict to run concurrently, says Allahabad HC
THE ALLAHABAD High Court has ordered that the sentences of a man convicted in six cases related to the theft of electricity equipment shall run concurrently, observing that his life and liberty would be jeopardised if his grievance was not addressed. The petitioner submitted that a trial court, while convicting him in all six cases on the same date, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year and six months in each case. However, due to the non-exercise of discretion under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C., the sentences were directed to run consecutively, meaning a total incarceration period of nine years. 'We are of the considered view that the life and liberty of the petitioner will be jeopardised if his grievance is not redressed in this writ petition. Thus, the writ petition is allowed. The sentence of one year and six months imprisonment awarded to the petitioner in all the six session cases, shown in the chart, shall run concurrently. The fine has been deposited by the petitioner, per enclosed receipts,' the court observed. The court said in its order, 'The Registry to inform the District Jail, Aligarh to release the petitioner- Santosh, considering the concurrent running of sentences.' The court passed the order while hearing a petition filed by one Santosh, seeking a direction to the Superintendent, District Jail, Aligarh, for issuance of appropriate orders for concurrent running of sentences imposed in six cases arising out of theft of electricity equipment, in which the petitioner was convicted upon admission of guilt under the plea bargaining mechanism. The court noted in its order that the counsel for the petitioner submits that the discretion provided under Section 427(1) Cr.P.C. has not been exercised by the trial Judge. The petitioner has confessed the crime on plea bargaining, considering that in all the cases the petitioner would be released after one and half years of imprisonment, as all the cases have been lodged by the police. The non exercise of discretion of consecutive or concurrent running of sentence by the trial Judge while convicting the petitioner simultaneously in six cases led to travesty of justice and long incarceration in jail.
Time of India
6 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
CBI court grants interim stay on proceedings against Mehul Choksi in bank fraud case
Mumbai: A Special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court on Friday granted an interim stayed on the trial court proceedings before Magistrate court against wanted jeweller Mehul Choksi and other accused persons, Aniyath Nair and Vipul Chitalia in a bank fraud case probed by the CBI in relation to loan granted by Canara Bank to a company, Bazel Jewellery . In April, CBI had filed a chargesheet before the Esplanade court in the said matter alleging cheating, diversion of funds and misappropriation of funds by Mehul Choksi and other officials of the company. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category PGDM Technology Project Management MCA Management Finance others Others Data Science Data Science Operations Management healthcare Design Thinking Leadership Cybersecurity CXO Data Analytics Public Policy Degree MBA Digital Marketing Healthcare Product Management Artificial Intelligence Skills you'll gain: Financial Analysis & Decision Making Quantitative & Analytical Skills Organizational Management & Leadership Innovation & Entrepreneurship Duration: 24 Months IMI Delhi Post Graduate Diploma in Management (Online) Starts on Sep 1, 2024 Get Details Choksi and his nephew, Nirav Modi , are the main accused in the PNB case being probed by both, the ED and CBI for allegedly causing a loss of over Rs..25,000 crores to the bank. Choksi, is currently detained in a prison in Belgium where the police arrested him on India's request. He has contested the extradition . Advocate Vijal Aggarwal appearing for Mehul Choksi and others argued that the order summoning the accused persons is a non-reasoned and mechanical order as the perusal of the same shows that the Magistrate has not applied its mind and not given reasons for summoning the Accused persons as to how offence is made out against them. He further argued that the word used in Section 204 Cr.P.C. which deals with issuance of process/summons against an accused is 'sufficient reasons' and the said reasons have not been stated by the Magistrate in its order. He further argued that the Magistrate has taken cognizance and summoned the accused persons 'with lightning speed' on the same day it has received the chargesheet along with documents running into thousands of pages filed in trunks which suggests that the said order has been passed in a mechanical manner. Counsel appearing for CBI sought time to file reply to the Revision petitions filed by Mehul Choksi and others to reply to contentions raised by them. The Court granted time to CBI to file reply to the petition filed by l Choksi and others and posted the matter on August 8.
India Gazette
09-07-2025
- Politics
- India Gazette
Delhi Riots: Delhi HC reserves order on Tasleem Ahmed's bail plea
New Delhi [India], July 9 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday reserved its order on the bail plea of Tasleem Ahmed, who is an accused in the larger Conspiracy of Delhi riots 2020 case. He has sought bail on several grounds, including the delay in trial and his prolonged incarceration in custody. His bail plea was opposed by the Delhi Police, contending that the delay could not be the sole ground for bail. The division bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar reserved the order after hearing the arguments by both sides. Advocate Mehmood Pracha appeared for petitioner Tasleem Ahmed, whose bail plea was dismissed by the trial court. The counsel submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for the last five years, and the trial has not yet commenced. Advocate Parcha also submitted that no adjournment was ever sought by the petitioner before the High Court. He also submitted that despite orders from the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court, the matter is not being heard on a day-to-day basis. It was further argued that the arguments on the charge on behalf of the petitioner have been completed. On the other hand, the Delhi Police opposed the bail plea, submitting that delay cannot be the sole ground for granting bail in UAPA cases. He referred to several judgments passed by the courts. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Amit Prasad appeared on behalf of the Delhi Police. He argued that there is an embargo on Section 43(D), which applies to the consideration of bail in UAPA cases. This proviso provides that bail cannot be granted without testing the material filed by the investigation agency against the accused. During the arguments, SPP also referred to the notice on conspiracy to riot. He submitted that a conspiracy was hatched, and consequently, 53 people died. On March 25, the High Court had asked the Delhi Police to file a note on the role of the accused, Tasleem Ahmed. Earlier, Advocate Mehmood Pracha had submitted that Tasleem Ahmed's case was different from that of the other co-accused persons. On February 22, 2024, the trial court dismissed his bail plea. Earlier, he had sought regular bail on the grounds of parity with three co-accused, namely Natasha Narwal, Devangana Kalita, and Asif Iqbal Tanha, in relation to a larger conspiracy surrounding the 2020 Delhi Riots. Devangana Kalita, Natasha Narwal, and Asif Iqbal Tanha were granted regular bail by the Delhi High Court on June 15, 2021, after their appeals against the trial court order were allowed. Special Judge Sameer Bajpai stated that the earlier bail application of accused Tasleem Ahmed was rejected by the predecessor court on March 16, 2022, in which the court held the allegations against the accused to be prima facie true. Hence, the embargo created by Section 43D of UA(P)A applies to the grant of bail to the accused, as well as the embargo contained in Section 437 Cr.P.C., the court held. (ANI)
Express Tribune
07-07-2025
- Politics
- Express Tribune
SC decries media trial of accused in custody
The Supreme Court has ruled that confessional statements made by an accused while in police custody and recorded by the media are inadmissible in court, warning that such media-facilitated confessions can undermine the presumption of innocence and irreparably damage the accused and the judicial process. "A confession made by such an accused while in custody of a police officer cannot be proved against him/her unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate," states the 25-page judgment authored by Justice Athar Minallah. The bench was hearing a criminal appeal in which the accused, earlier sentenced to death by the trial court and whose conviction was upheld by the high court based on circumstantial evidence and his televised confession, was acquitted by the SC. "It is not uncommon for a reporter to be given access to interview and record a statement of the accused and then disseminate it for information of the public. The news regarding a crime is always of interest to the people, particularly when the case is of high profile or the nature of the crime is of interest to the general public. An unusual interest of the public could lead to a media trial and the consequences could be irretrievable, not only for the accused but the victims as well." The judgment warned that such trials could also obstruct justice by enabling wrongful convictions. "The public interest may also be harmed by preventing the actual perpetrators of the crime from being held to account and instead facilitating the conviction of an innocent person on the basis of a perceived imputation of guilt," it said. Justice Minallah noted that media holds enormous power to shape narratives - whether true or false - and this influence can wreak irreparable harm on the reputation and lives of not only the accused but also their families. "The media has the unique power to make heroes or villains, intentionally or unintentionally, and such powers are susceptible to be abused in a society where the State suppresses freedom of expression and manipulates the media." In such a context, the judgment underscores that an even greater ethical responsibility lies on the media. "A greater responsibility rests with the media to strictly observe high standards of ethical codes in order to strike a balance between the rights of parties involved in criminal proceedings and the public interest i.e. what information should be disseminated to the general public." The judgment noted that the bedrock of the criminal justice system was the right to a fair trial, rooted in the presumption of innocence. "The guilt can only be proved in a trial before a competent court. The investigation ought to be conducted strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law i.e the Cr.P.C. and, that too, by a person authorised in this regard." Justice Minallah stressed that every effort must be made by investigators to protect the rights of the accused. "Extreme caution and care are required to be exercised by those associated with the process of investigation to safeguard the rights of an accused - his or her right to be presumed innocent, the right to privacy, reputation, respect for private life and the lives of the family members and the right against self-incrimination." Those involved in criminal investigations must not act in ways that create or support perceptions of guilt. "It is an onerous obligation of the investigators, prosecutors and other persons associated with the task of investigation to prevent the creation of perception and bias by acting in any manner likely to impute guilt." The court also called on media to uphold the dignity of both the accused and victims. "It is also the responsibility of the media, in any form, to respect the rights of an accused as well as the victims while reporting on matters relating to criminal proceedings. A disproportionate and excessive media spotlight and the manner in which it is presented is likely to create perceptions of guilt and influence the public as well as those who are associated with the criminal proceedings." In this regard, Justice Minallah acknowledged that judicial officers are not immune. "The judicial officers are also humans and in this age of information and technology it would not be wrong to assume that they may also be susceptible to be influenced by the media coverage. This is a universal phenomenon."
India Gazette
10-06-2025
- India Gazette
Court asks Director FSL to appear personally over non filing of report in a case against Kejriwal
New Delhi [India], June 10 (ANI): The Rouse Avenue court on Monday issued a notice to the Director of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) to appear personally over non-filing of a report pertaining to a CD in a defacement case against former CM Arvind Kejriwal. Earlier, on May 23, the court directed him to examine a CD in a case of public property defacement and asked him to file the report. An FIR has already been registered in this case against former CM Arvind Kejriwal, ex-MLA Gulab Singh, and MCD councillor Nitika Sharma. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) Neha Mittal issued a notice to the Director of FSL to appear in person on June 28. While issuing notice, the court noted that the notice issued to the Director, FSL, had been received back duly served. However, no report has been received from the Director, FSL. ' In view thereof, issue notice to Director, FSL to appear in person for 28.06.2025,' ACJM ordered on June 9. On May 23, Delhi police filed a Status report stating that the CD has been sent to FSL for expert opinion and the result of the same is awaited. After hearing the submissions of the Investigation Officer (IO), the court had issued notice to the Director requesting him to expedite the result in the present case and to file a report. On May 8, after hearing an application moved by the IO, the court had released the CD containing the photographs along with a Section 65B certificate. It was submitted by IO that the CD is required to be sent to FSL. From the submissions made, it appears that the CD is required for further investigation in the present matter. Further, the complainant has expressed his inability to provide the photographs, the court had noted on May 8. The court on March 11, directed Delhi police to file an FIR on a complaint filed against former CM Arvind Kejriwal, former MLA Gulab Singh and MCD councillor Nitika Sharma in a matter related to defacement of public property in Dwarka area in 2019. On March 28, police had informed the court that they had registered an FIR on a complaint against Arvind Kejriwal and others. The complainant has alleged a Violation of the Defacement of Public Property Act in the Dwarka area. This direction was passed on a complaint filed by one Shiv Kumar Saksena. The court said that it is of the considered opinion that the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed. ' Accordingly, the concerned SHO is directed to register FIR immediately under section 3 of the Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007 and any other offence that appears to have been committed from the facts of the case,' ACJM Mittal ordered on March 11. (ANI)
