Supreme Court: Rape Conviction Possible Without S.376 Charge if POCSO Case Fails on Age Proof  ||  SC: Mere Long Possession Can't Establish Adverse Possession; Hostile Intent is Required  ||  Supreme Court Finds Gaps in FSSAI’s Proposed Warning Labels for Foods High in Fat, Sugar and Salt  ||  Supreme Court Quashes ITS Officer's 'Deadwood' Retirement, Orders Rs. 15 Lakh Payment  ||  Uttarakhand HC: District Magistrate to Establish Public Helpline within 24 Hrs amid Water Pollution  ||  Allahabad HC: Custodial Violence and Molestation Are Crimes, Not Police Duty  ||  Gujarat High Court: Bombay Public Trust Registration is Covered by Section 43 of the Waqf Act  ||  J&K&L HC: Advocates not Above Law, No Immunity from Lawful Police Inquiry  ||  Gauhati HC: Talaq-e-Hasan Valid, Requires Registration under Assam Marriage Act  ||  NCLAT: NCLT President Empowered to Transfer Cases from One Bench to Another    

SERVICE - Criminal Antecedents can't be Said to be 'Clear' When Acquittal is by Granting Benefit of Doubt: SC - (30 Mar 2019)

SERVICE

Supreme Court has observed that criminal antecedents of an employee or a candidate cannot be said to be clear when he was acquitted in a criminal case on ground of benefit of doubt and not because case against him was found to be false.

Tags : SUPREME COURT   BENEFIT OF DOUBT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved