Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“When question of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is involved, it is the duty of all officers concerned, to be sensitive before passing of the externment order.”
“Considering the reasons mentioned by the appellant for his absence, that he was under impression that the Court clerk would give him the date for which he had requested, is a sufficient explanation to interfere in the order of dismissal for non-prosecution.”
The case was pending before the Magistrate for almost 10 years, but during that entire period, the petitioner did not make any effort to examine the allottee as a witness. This clearly showed lack of due diligence by the petitioner during the trial before the Magistrate.
The Special Judge had deprived the accused from their indefensible right to default bail as the orders granting extension to file the charge-sheet were passed in routine manner, without considering the provisions of Section 21(2)(b) of MCOCA in its true perspective and without enforcing the statutory duty of ‘application of mind’ by the Public Prosecutor.
The husband’s friend tried to convince him that if his demands are not fulfilled then he shall not cohabit with his wife and shall send her to her paternal home.
The Court opined that Deputy Inspector General Prison committed gross error by relying on Notification dated 2-12-2024 and by not applying his mind while passing the order.
It is submitted that though there was fighting at public place, due to that fighting, there was no disturbance to the public peace, which is an essential ingredient of Section 159 of Penal Code, 1860. Therefore, as there is no breach/disturbance to the public peace, no offence is made out.