SC: ‘Abandonment of Service is Not Voluntary Retirement’, Denying SBI Clerk Pension Benefits  ||  Supreme Court: Stranger Affected by an Interim Order is Entitled to be Impleaded in Writ Proceedings  ||  Supreme Court: Courts Cannot Replace an Authority’s Discretion, and Sets Aside Direction to Governor  ||  SC: Title Suit Hit by Constructive Res Judicata if Omitted in Prior Injunction Suit Disputing Title  ||  SC Clarifies Whether a Co-Operative Society Can Act as a Resolution Applicant under the IBC  ||  Chhattisgarh High Court: Innocent Litigants Should Not be Penalized For Lapses by Their Lawyers  ||  Delhi High Court: Marriage With the Victim Cannot Absolve an Accused of Rape under POCSO  ||  J&K&L HC: Acquisition Lapses if 80% Compensation is Unpaid Before Possession under Section 17A  ||  Delhi HC: Policy Number is Not Mandatory For LIC Details under RTI, But Basic Details are Required  ||  SC: Courts Must Curb Unlicensed Money Lenders; Probes Need Not Wait For New Law    

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order Which Misread Direction - (02 Mar 2020)

CRIMINAL

Delhi High Court has clarified that there is a difference between "addition" of charge and "alteration" of charge under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court has stated that when the High Court had, in a criminal revision Petition, directed the Trial Court to add the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the Accused, the Trial Court had erred since it "replaced" the existing charge under Section 304 Part I with Section 304B of IPC.

Tags : DELHI HIGH COURT   TRIAL COURT ORDER WHICH MISREAD DIRECTION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved