Remfry & Sagar’s Post

"Legal Precedence: Special Laws vs. General Laws in Criminal Offenses" Archi Gala, Associate at VMH & Associates shares “The recent ruling by the Bombay High Court in Awadhesh Kumar Parasnath Pathak & Ors v State & Ors addressed the precedence of special laws, such as the Information and Technology Act (IT Act), over general laws like the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in cases where both laws prescribe punishment for the same criminal offense. According to the court's interpretation, when an offense falls under both a special law and a general law, the special law prevails, rendering the general law inapplicable. However, the court specified that this principle doesn't apply if the special law fails to comprehensively cover all elements of the offense outlined in the general law. In such cases, both laws can be invoked concurrently. The court examined this principle while considering conflicting judgments within the High Court regarding the invocation of both IT Act provisions and IPC provisions for certain acts. The court highlighted instances where specific elements crucial for constituting an offense under the IPC were absent in the provisions of the IT Act. Consequently, it concluded that individuals could be prosecuted under both the IT Act and the IPC for certain offenses. Notably, the court emphasized the absence of provisions within the IT Act addressing scenarios involving common intention among offenders, indicating that such cases fall exclusively under the purview of the IPC.” https://lnkd.in/dJazpaCD

First FIR under new laws filed in Delhi . . Follow Lawstreet Journal for more legal updates #BharatiyaNyaySanhita #NewCriminalCode #FIR #StreetVendor #NewDelhi #PublicObstruction #LawEnforcement #PublicSafety #LegalUpdate #IndianLaw #India #LawstreetJ . . Click to read full article 👇 https://shorturl.at/rDuNM

"Over 1,500 laws were eliminated to ensure citizens are not trapped in a web of legal complexities"- PM Modi Read More Here- https://lnkd.in/gyusFhGf Narendra Modi #BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita #BharatiyaNyayaSanhita #BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam #IndependenceDaySpeech #Indiandemocracy #legalaspects #nationaddress #newcriminallaws #OneNationOneElection #PMModi #SecularCivilCode #scconline #SCC #legalnews #legalknowledge #scctimes #legalblog #legalupdates #lawstudent #legalresearch #legalstudies #surestwaytolegalresearch #bringingyouthebestlegalnews

Dive into the key provisions and implications of the new Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023, expertly analyzed by Aditya Chavan & Siddhantrao Molankar. Gain valuable insights from our comprehensive presentation on this significant legal development. 📝 Read the full article and presentation here: https://lnkd.in/g8-StJhE #LegalUpdate #indialawllp #BharatiyaSakshyaAdhiniyam2023 #CriminalLaw #LegalInsights

Confession of co-accused is not evidence; with reference to Indian case law: In the strict sense confession is not evidence. According to definition of ‘Evidence’ under Evidence Act, 1872 oral evidence can be given only by witness. In the case of Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002) Supreme Court observed, “The confession of a co-accused does not come within the definition of evidence contained in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. These are following reasons - i) It is not required to be given on oath, ii) nor in the presence of the accused, and iii) it cannot be tested by cross-examination”.

The Delhi High Court has clarified that the procedure for anticipatory bail applications related to FIRs filed before the implementation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) should be governed by the BNSS if the application is filed on or after July 1, 2024. This ruling emphasizes that the new procedural law applies to all such cases, irrespective of when the FIR was registered. The court's decision highlights the significance of the BNSS in ensuring that all new legal applications adhere to the updated legal framework. This ruling marks an important development in the interpretation and application of the new criminal laws, impacting how anticipatory bail applications are processed moving forward. #LegalUpdate #BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita #CriminalLaw #AnticipatoryBail #LegalReform #IndiaLaw #JudicialRuling #LegalProfessionals #LawAndOrder #CriminalJustice #LawUpdates

The Comprehensive Legal Resource on the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita—Offering a Detailed Comparison with the Code of Criminal Procedure, Featuring: ✅ Bare Act ✅ Section-wise 'Comparative' Tables ✅ Subject Index ✅ Section/Alphabetical Key ✅ Comparative Study Look inside the book: https://lnkd.in/gd8Raf6w Like It? Buy Now with Free Expedited Shipping & Get a Limited Period Discount! https://lnkd.in/gSTeYVUS #TaxmannBooks #TaxmannUpdates #CriminalLaws #BNSS #BharatiyaNagarikSurakshaSanhita #CrPC #Legal

Disclosure Statement Not Admissible Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act The Supreme Court has underscored the importance of adhering to the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in cases involving disclosure statements. A recent judgment highlights that a disclosure statement is inadmissible in evidence if the alleged discovery was not made pursuant to that statement. In this case, two individuals convicted under Section 304 Part I of the IPC were acquitted. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must exercise caution and avoid presenting a simple case of recovery as a case of discovery of fact to invoke Section 27. The Bench clarified that the disclosure statement in question was recorded at the police station, whereas the recovery was made from a location pointed out by the accused en route to the police station. Consequently, the recovery was deemed to be based on the accused's indication and not on the disclosure statement. This ruling serves as a reminder for legal practitioners and investigators to strictly adhere to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act and ensure that the chain of evidence remains intact. #IndianEvidenceAct #DisclosureStatement #Section27 #SupremeCourt #LegalInsights #Law #Justice

LAW:- VALIDITY OF SANCTION UNDER UAPA SHOULD BE RAISED BY THE ACCUSED AT THE EARLIEST JUDGMENT:- Fulleshwar Gope v. UOI & Ors., SLP (Crl) No. 4866 of 2023 BENCH :- Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Karol ISSUE:-Many aspects related to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) were dealt with out of which the question of Validity of Sanction and its stage was discussed in detail. IT WAS HELD THAT:- Validity of sanction should be challenged at the earliest instance available, before the Trial Court ,If such a challenge is raised at an appellate stage it would be for the person raising the challenge to justify the reasons for bringing the same at a belated stage .Such reasons would have to be considered independently so as to ensure that there is no misuse of the right of challenge with the aim to stall or delay proceedings . On facts, keeping in view the submission made that the trial is underway and numerous witnesses (113 out of 125) already stand examined, no finding given on the challenge to the validity of the sanction qua the appellant and leave it to be raised before the trial judge, who shall, if such a question is raised decide it promptly. RELEVANT PARAS:- PARA 18 and 51.1 of the Judgment NOTE BY:- SATYAM PANDEY ADVOCATE MP HIGH COURT BENCH AT INDORE FORMER JUDGE MP JUD SERVICES Link below:- https://lnkd.in/gEWx6Wbq

In M/s JMD Mobiles vs. State of Haryana, the court restored a dismissed cheque-bouncing complaint, calling the dismissal arbitrary, and ordered expedited proceedings on its merits. Case Title: M/s JMD Mobiles vs. State of Haryana & Another Law Involved: Section 138, Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonor) Law Point: Arbitrary dismissal of complaint due to non-appearance Bench: High Court of Punjab and Haryana Outcome: Restoration of the 2013 complaint, expedited trial #ChequeBounce #NegotiableInstrumentsAct #LegalJustice #Section138 #CourtRuling #PunjabHaryanaHighCourt #ArbitraryDismissal #ExpeditedTrial #LegalRestoration #JudicialProcess