Plea to Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy Dismissed, SC Talks About Right to Life of Child in Womb || Supreme Court: Written Grounds of Arrest Must be Given to the Accused in UAPA Cases Too || Supreme Court: Difference Between ‘Reasons of Arrest’ and ‘Grounds of Arrest’ Stated || All HC: No Bar on Anticipa. Bail to Accused Booked u/s 376(3) IPC through UP Amend. to S. 438 CrPC || NCDRC Cautioned by Supreme Court: Hierarchy of Judiciary Must Be Respected || Supreme Court: Cannot Allow Wrong Doers to Make Profit Out of Their Own Wrongs || AP HC: App. u/s 11(6) Can Only be Maintained if Parties Fail to Refer Dispute to Arbi. Even After Not || Del. HC: Father Held Guilty of Repeatedly Raping Minor Daughter for 2 Years, Acquittal Reversed || SC: Reconsideration Required of the Judgement That Brought Doctors Under Consumer Protection Act || SC: Person Purchasing Prop. Knowing About Appeal Pendency Can’t Claim Restit. as Bona Fide Purchaser

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 :