Allahabad HC: Victim Compensation under POCSO Act Cannot be Withheld For Lack of Injury Report || MP HC: Diverting Goods From Delivery Point is Misappropriation under S.407 IPC || Delhi HC: Bar Associations are Not ‘State’ under Article 12 as They Do Not Perform Public Functions || Delhi HC: Pending Probate Proceedings Do Not Prevent Filing FIR For Alleged Will Forgery || Ker HC: Dismissal For Default Alone Cannot Justify Rejecting Restoration Plea For Lack of Vigilance || SC: Disclosure Statements Alone Cannot Secure Conviction Without a Complete Chain of Evidence || Supreme Court Orders Reporting of Student Suicides and Bans Denial of Classes or Exams || SC: Govt Can Exclude Overqualified Candidates From Posts Requiring Lower Qualifications || SC: Contracts to Hire Global Speakers For Media Summits are Not Taxable as Event Management Services || SC: Mandatory Injunction Suit Alone is Not Maintainable When Plaintiff’s Title is Disputed

Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau and ors v. Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj and ors - (High Court of Kerala) (09 Nov 2015)

Justice not only done but also seen to be done: Kerala HC

Criminal

Kerala High Court held that the Director of Vigilance can give ‘timely directions’ while conducting investigation, but not after. Observations and findings on merits of the court below on the investigation below were set aside. The matter pertained to a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau of Kerala investigation into an alleged demand of Rs. 5 crores to renew bar licences by Kerala’s Finance Minister. The Court cautioned against the possibility of an improper investigation by State a department when the accused endured as a Minister in the government.

Tags : VIGILANCE MINISTER IMPROPER INVESTIGATION

Share :