ADVOCATE SANJAY BISHNOI’s Post

Exploring CrPC Section 389: Understanding the Importance of Suspended Sentences In the realm of criminal law, Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) plays a pivotal role in ensuring justice is served fairly. This section deals with the provision for the suspension of a sentence pending an appeal by a convicted individual. Key points to note about Section 389 CrPC: Provision for Suspension: It allows the court to suspend the execution of the sentence of imprisonment or fine pending an appeal. Consideration of Circumstances: The court takes into account various factors such as the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, likelihood of the appeal being successful, etc., before deciding on suspension. Protection of Rights: This provision ensures that individuals have the opportunity to appeal against their convictions without being immediately subjected to the consequences of the sentence. Case Laws: State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yusuf: In this landmark case, the Supreme Court held that the power under Section 389 CrPC is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously considering the facts and circumstances of each case. Sukhwant Singh v. Union of India: The Delhi High Court in this case emphasized the importance of balancing the interests of justice with the rights of the accused while exercising discretion under Section 389 CrPC. Understanding Section 389 CrPC and its interpretations through case laws is crucial for legal professionals, ensuring fair treatment and due process for all individuals involved in criminal proceedings. #CrPC #LegalInsights #CriminalLaw #DueProcess #Section389

Chief Justice of India Dr. D Y Chandrachud delves into India's monumental legal shift, replacing key criminal statutes with three new criminal legislations, speaking at the Conference on 'India's Progressive Path in the Administration of Criminal Justice System' by Ministry of Law and Justice.     Video Courtesy: Ministry of Law and Justice, YouTube Channel     #LegalReform #CriminalJustice #IndiaProgresses #LawAndJustice #ChiefJusticeChandrachud #LegalEvolution #BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita #BharatiyaNyayaSanhita #BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam #BNS #BNSS #BSA #NewCriminalLaws #IPC #CrPC #EvidenceAct #scconline #SCC #legalnews #scconlineblog #legalknowledge #legalblog #legalupdates #lawstudent #legalresearch #legalstudies #surestwaytolegalresearch #bringingyouthebestlegalnews

In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of ensuring speedy trials for accused individuals. The court's decision came in response to the National Investigating Agency's (NIA) delay in conducting trials under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. The court ruled that if the prosecution is unable to ensure a speedy trial, they cannot oppose bail applications citing the seriousness of the offence. This stance underscores the constitutional right to speedy trial, as enshrined in the Constitution of India. The ruling highlights the need for effective investigation and prosecution processes, ensuring that accused individuals are not denied their fundamental rights. By prioritizing speedy trials, the court aims to maintain a fair and just criminal justice system. #SupremeCourtOfIndia #SupremeCourt #HighCourt #Legal #Law #India

#Understanding Section 173(8) #Cr.P.C. 📚 Supplementary Reports & Validity Recently, the High Court of Kerala ruled that while Section 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code allows for further investigation without prior court permission, it is advisable for the police to seek such permission to maintain judicial integrity. The court concluded that the supplementary final report, which included the petitioner as an accused, was legally sustainable despite the lack of formal permission for further investigation. The court emphasized that obtaining formal permission for further investigation is recognized in law and should be adhered to as a matter of practice. It noted that while failure to seek such permission does not automatically invalidate the supplementary report, it is essential for upholding the relationship between the judiciary and law enforcement agencies. The court also highlighted that the presence of new evidence justifying the inclusion of an accused must be substantiated by witness statements and corroborated by existing records. #Livelaw #LegalInsights #CriminalLaw #JudicialIntegrity #HighCourtRuling #KeralaHighCourt #CriminalProcedure #JusticeSystem #LawEnforcement #FurtherInvestigation #Section1738 #LegalPrecedents #CourtDecision #EvidenceLaw #LegalCommunity https://lnkd.in/gmkzPeVJ

Applicability of New Criminal Laws, BNS, BNSS and BSA 2023: While observing that the enforcement of the new criminal laws and procedure was a significant milestone in the administration of justice in India, Hon’ble Punjab &Haryana High Court clarified and concluded that: - Any appeal/application/revision/petition filed on or after July 1, 2024 under the provisions of CrPC, 1973 is non-maintainable and would deserve dismissal/rejection. - In case any appeal/application/revision/petition is filed upto June 30, 2024, but there is a defect and such defect is cured/removed on or after July 1, such appeal/application/revision/petition shall be deemed to have been validly filed/instituted on or after July 1 and, therefore, would be non-maintainable. - Section 531 of BNSS shall apply to “revision”,“petition” as also “petition of complaint” (complaint before magistrate) with the same vigour as it is statutorily mandated to apply to “appeal/application/trial/inquiry or investigation” in terms of Section 531 of BNSS. #law #legal #criminallaw #newlaw #act #newact #highcourt #delhi #delhihighcourt #lawfirm #lawislife #livelawupdates #barandbench #lawislife #advocate #parliament #bns2023 #BNSS2023 #fortunelegal www.fortunelegal.in Email: info@fortunelegal.in FortuneLegal Advocates https://lnkd.in/gMvT_YFC

🚨 Legal Alert: Bombay High Court Declares Arrest Illegal Due to Failure to Communicate Grounds of Arrest In a significant judgment, the Bombay High Court has declared an arrest illegal due to non-communication of the grounds of arrest to the accused, highlighting a breach of constitutional and procedural mandates. 🔹 Case Background: The petitioner, arrested on 01-11-2023 in connection with an FIR related to a tragic incident involving multiple IPC offenses, argued that his arrest violated Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the CrPC, as the reasons were not conveyed to him directly. 🔹 Key Findings: Violation of Rights: The Court emphasized that under Section 50 of the CrPC, full details of the offense must be immediately communicated to the arrested individual. Communication Gaps: The arrest panchnama revealed that only the accused's wife was informed via phone, not the accused himself, failing the legal requirement. Landmark References: The judgment cited Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), reaffirming the difference between "reasons for arrest" and "grounds of arrest." 🔹 Outcome: The Division Bench ruled the arrest as unlawful and declared the remand orders null and void. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail. This ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to constitutional safeguards during arrest procedures. #LegalUpdate #FundamentalRights #CriminalLaw #ConstitutionalLaw

DAY 25 OF LEGAL UPDATES- In the criminal law system of India, there are primarily three types of trials: Sessions Court Trial: These trials are conducted for serious offenses punishable with imprisonment exceeding seven years. Sessions Courts have the authority to hear such cases and can impose more severe punishments. They involve a more formal and elaborate procedure, including examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Magistrate Court Trial: Magistrate Courts handle less serious offenses, typically those punishable with imprisonment for up to seven years. These courts also deal with bail applications, framing of charges, and conducting trials for minor offenses. Magistrate Courts follow a relatively simpler procedure compared to Sessions Courts. Summons Trial: In cases of minor offenses, where the accused is not arrested but issued a summons to appear in court, a summons trial takes place. These trials are generally quicker and involve less formal procedures compared to sessions or magistrate court trials. They aim for swift resolution of minor offenses while ensuring fair treatment of the accused. #supremecourtofindia #trendingposts #trending

Understanding Jurisdiction in Legal Matters in India. 1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Consumer disputes, such as a faulty electronic product (e.g., a malfunctioning television), fall under consumer courts, not civil courts. #ConsumerRights #SubjectMatterJurisdiction #ConsumerCourt 2. Territorial Jurisdiction Crimes are tried in the court of the region where they occurred as location matters the most in criminal cases. Example: A robbery in Borivali is handled by the Borivali Magistrate Court. #CriminalLaw #TerritorialJurisdiction #LocationMatters 3. Original Jurisdiction. Matters between two states (e.g., a dispute over the sharing of river water between states) are heard in the Supreme Court. #OriginalJurisdiction #SupremeCourt #InterStateDisputes** 4. Appellate Jurisdiction. Cases progress from #District/#Subordinate #Courts to #High Court, and from High Court to #SupremeCourt based on appeals. Example: A civil suit appealed from a District Court to a High Court, and then to the Supreme Court. #AppellateJurisdiction #CourtHierarchy #LegalAppeals 5. Pecuniary Jurisdiction. Courts have restrictions on hearing cases based on the monetary value of the dispute. #PecuniaryJurisdiction #MonetaryValue #SmallClaims

If there is apprehension of arrest even after issuance of notice u/s 41A of CrPC, it cannot be said that anticipatory bail is not maintainable: Andhra Pradesh HC Reported by Arushi Pandey Read More Here- https://lnkd.in/gGShkDKU #AndhraPradeshHighCourt #anticipatorybail #CriminalProcedureCode1973 #healthcondition #Issuanceofnotice #noticeofappearance #Section41AofCrPC #Section438ofCrPC #scconline #SCC #legalnews #scconlineblog #legalknowledge #legalblog #legalupdates #lawstudent #legalresearch #legalstudies #surestwaytolegalresearch #bringingyouthebestlegalnews

Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction under NDPS Act: Case Overview: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an accused under the NDPS Act due to insufficient evidence of conspiracy in transporting a psychotropic substance. Facts of the Case: The case involved the seizure of pentazocine, a psychotropic substance, being transported as a railway parcel. The Narcotics Control Bureau arrested accused no.1, who booked the parcel, and the appellant (accused no.2), who ran a medical store allegedly involved in selling the contraband. Lower Court Convictions: The Special Court convicted the appellant under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,00,000/-. The conviction was based on statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Supreme Court Appeal: The appellant argued that there was no evidence proving the contraband in the parcel was purchased from him. The Supreme Court had previously held in *Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu* that statements recorded under Section 67 are not admissible as evidence. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the appellant's involvement was evidenced by invoices showing the supply of Fortwin injections by accused no.3 at the appellant's request. Supreme Court's Findings: The Court found no recovery of incriminating material from the appellant. There was no evidence linking the contraband transported by accused no.1 to the appellant. The Court noted the absence of any conspiracy evidence against the appellant. Section 67 Statements: The Supreme Court refused to accept the Section 67 statements as confessional evidence. Prosecution's Evidence Lapses: The Court highlighted the prosecution's failure to examine a crucial witness who allegedly transported the contraband from accused no.3 to the appellant. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that there was no legal evidence proving the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant's conviction was set aside. Case Details: Ajay Kumar Gupta vs. Union of India, Criminal Appeal No. 878 of 2019. #NDPSAct #LegalUpdate #CriminalLaw #Advocacy #LegalKnowledge