SC: Confirmation of an Auction Sale Does Not Bar Judicial Scrutiny of Reserve Price Valuation || Supreme Court Sets Aside Conviction of Four Men in a 1998 Gang Rape Case || Supreme Court: Privy Purse Privileges of Princely Rulers are Not Enforceable Legal Rights || Delhi HC: Repeated Court Summons May Distress and Re-Traumatize Child Sexual Assault Victims || Jammu and Kashmir High Court: Labeling Someone as a Terrorist Associate Amounts to Defamation || Delhi HC: Setting Aside or Altering a Judge’s Order by a Higher Court Doesn’t Affect Their Integrity || Delhi High Court: Accused Cannot be Faulted For Smart Replies; Interrogator Must be Sharper || Supreme Court: Belated Jurisdictional Challenge Impermissible After Participation in Arbitration || Supreme Court: Failure to Prove Specific Overt Acts of Each Unlawful Assembly Member Not Fatal || Supreme Court: Parental Salary Alone Cannot Determine OBC Creamy Layer Status

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 :