Kerala HC: Physiotherapists and Occupational Therapists Cannot Use “Dr.” Without Medical Degree  ||  Delhi High Court: Law Firms Must Verify Cited Case Laws; Senior Counsel Not Responsible for Finality  ||  MP High Court Dismisses Shah Bano’s Daughter’s Plea, Rules ‘Haq’ Movie is Fiction  ||  Bombay HC Cancels ERC Order, Rules Stakeholders Must Be Heard Before Amending Multi-Year Tariff  ||  Calcutta High Court Rules Dunlop’s Second Appeal Not Maintainable under the Trade Marks Act  ||  Kerala HC: Revisional Power U/S 263 Not Invocable When AO Grants Sec 32AC Deduction After Inquiry  ||  J&K&L HC: Section 359 BNSS Doesn’t Limit High Court’s Inherent Power U/S 528 to Quash FIRs  ||  Bombay HC: BMC Ban on Footpath Cooking via Gas/Grill Doesn’t Apply to Vendors Using Induction  ||  Madras HC: Buyer Not Liable for Seller’s Tax Default; Purchase Tax Can’t Be Imposed under TNGST Act  ||  Kerala HC: Oral Allegations Alone Insufficient to Sustain Bribery Charges Against Ministers    

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 2025 - All Rights Reserved