Authorities Holding Public Auctions Must Disclose All Known Encumbrances and Related Litigation || SC: Compensatory Allowances Must Be Included While Computing Overtime Wages U/S 59 of Factories Act || SC: NGT Has No Jurisdiction to Decide Disputes Relating to Building Plan Violations || SC: Evidence is Often Fabricated Using AI And False Allegations are Rampant in Matrimonial Cases || SC: While Declining to Quash an FIR, A High Court Should Not Direct Police To Follow Section 41A CrPC || Allahabad High Court: Recruitment Rules Cannot Override Compassionate Appointments || Rajasthan HC: Single Blunt Blow Causing Grievous Injury is Not Attempt to Murder Without Intent || Karnataka High Court Holds Mining Leases Granted in Violation of Rule 22-D are Void Ab Initio || Supreme Court: Wait-Listed Candidates Have No Vested Right After List Expiry || SC: Reserved Candidates Scoring Above General Cut-Off Must be Considered For Open Posts

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 :