The court must be fulfilled that there is a sensible cause and a sensible ground for gift of expectant safeguard. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. Condition of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632 the Supreme Court held that: – "Before force under sub-area (1) of Section 438 of the Code is worked out, the Court must be fulfilled that the candidate summoning the procurement has motivation to trust that he is prone to be captured for a non-bailable offense and that conviction must be established on sensible grounds. Minor "trepidation" is not conviction, for which reason, it is insufficient for the candidate to demonstrate that he has some kind of dubious anxiety that somebody is going to make an allegation against him, in compatibility of which he might be captured. The grounds, on which the conviction of the candidate is based that he might be captured for a non-bailable offense, must be fit for being inspected by the Court dispassionately. Particular occasions and certainties must be uncovered by the candidate keeping in mind the end goal to empower the Court to judge of the sensibility of his conviction, the presence of which is the sine qua non of the activity of force presented by the
This is done by the way complaint procedures are laid out in an easy fashion to be easily understood. This includes a number of simple steps to reporting the concern or complaint including; writing a letter, it was acknowledged after 3 days maximum and how the complaint would be managed was thoroughly discussed and investigated and the individual who made the complaint then quickly receives information about what was being done and how long it would take for her complaint to be managed and what would be done ,after discussion, to avoid this from happening again. If then the individual who complains is not satisfied they can appeal to the commissioning organisation, eg, the NHS or an organisation like the CQC for a better result from her complaint. You can also complain by going straight to eg. a line manager or ward manager in a hospital, and making your complaint or by following step by step procedures online.
State of Karnataka , it was held by the Supreme Court of India that the results of the test cannot be admitted as an evidence even though consented by the accused because there is no conscious control is being exercised by the subject during the course of test but the court left one option that if the subject consented for the test then any material or information discovered that can be admitted under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further it was also held that according to section 25 of Evidence Act “Confession made before any police officer are not admissible as evidence before the court.” Thus the court is of the view that the statements made by the subject during custody are not admissible as evidence unless same has to be cross examined or judicially scrutinized. The court further held that too much reliance on results gathered from such scientific tests may lead to the hampering of an accused’s right to fair trial. And though public interest is an important factor to be kept in mind while deciding the relevancy or validity of such scientific techniques, but it cannot violate the provisions given under the constitution protecting the accused from
CHAPTER VII IMPLICATIONS OF HAVING A CLEAR DEFINITION WITH ITS CORRESPONDING ELEMENTS FOR THE CRIME OF UNJUST VEXATION Substantially, defining the crime of unjust Vexation with corresponding elements would bar any challenges against its constitutionality based on the grounds mentioned in Chapter V of this paper. Procedurally, defining the crime of Unjust Vexation with corresponding elements will also help both the prosecution and the accused avail of several procedures recognized under our criminal procedure, such as: Plea Bargaining The rule on the provisions on Pre –Trial indicates that plea bargaining is one of the matters to be considered during the pre-trial stage, a proceeding conducted before the trial. “Rule 116, Sec. 2: Plea of
If the defendant refuses to obey that order, she can be cited for criminal contempt and even imprisoned. The defendant can also be cited for civil contempt for continuing to refuse to obey the order and can be incarcerated. When specific performance is impossible or the pleading or proof does not justify that remedy, and the court may give damages in lieu of specific performance
But the accused does not have an inherent right to appeal against his conviction and the same has to be conferred by a statute. Part XXI-A of Cr.P.C provides legal sanction to plea-bargaining thus making it an procedure established by law and thus does not violate the rights of the accused, keeping in mind adherence to the 3 key criteria to fulfil legality of plea-bargaining i.e. Knowledge, Intention, Voluntary. Sec- 265-G of Cr.P.C, judgement delivered by the court under section 265-G shall be final and no appeal (except the special leave petition under Article 136 and writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution) shall lie in any court against such
The victim is not required to testify, except in some cases, or provide any further information in order for prosecution to continue. In situations where the victim does not want to participate, prosecutors may simply use factual evidence and witness testimony in order to get a conviction (Corsilles, 1994). However, in other cases where there is not enough evidence, victims may have to be subpoenaed in order to provide the courts with enough information for the prosecution to continue with the charges. The final treatment of cases under this policy regards the option of dropping a case. Although not common, there are some cases in which the victim and the aggressor choose to come to terms and the victim wants the charges to be dropped.
CHAPTER IV Admissible evidence in civil proceedings Any evidence, to be admissible, must be relevant. The rules on evidence contained primarily within Parts 32 and 33 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 give the court power to control the evidence brought before it. For example, the court may decide, prior to trial, that a particular issue between the parties is no longer important and can therefore make an order excluding any evidence that the parties intended to use in relation to that particular issue. There are some exceptions to the rule that any relevant evidence is admissible. This includes: Opinion evidence The general rule is that opinion evidence is not admissible, as the function of a witness is to relate the facts to the court so the court can draw its own conclusions.
Any order made under this Act will be enforceable at some place of India while disposing the authority, the magistrate shall take into account any domestic incident record acquired from the protection officer or provider company. The relief sought under this segment includes the issuance of order of fee or reimbursement or damages without injustice to the proper of such individual to institute suit for repayment or damages for injuries caused by the act of domestic violence. If the magistrate is satisfied that an software prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing or has committed an act of domestic violence or there may be a likelihood of such violence, he may additionally furnish following exparte interim order towards the respondent on the idea of affidavit of the aggrieved man or woman. Magistrate can problem distinct orders together with Protection order, residence order, economic comfort, custody order or compensatory orders as consistent with the situations of the
Mere disobedience by a party to a civil action of a specific order of the court made on him in that action is classified as a “Civil Contempt”. The order is made at the request and for the sole benefit of the party to the civil action. There is an element of public policy in punishing civil contempt, since the administration of justice would be undermined if the order of any court of law could be disregarding with impunity, but no sufficient public interest is served by punishing the offender if the only person for whose benefit the order was made chooses not to insist on its enforcement. All other contempt’s of court are classified as “Criminal Contempt”, whether the particular proceedings to which the conduct of the contemnor relates are themselves criminal proceedings or are civil litigation between individual citizens. This is because it is public interest in the due administration of justice, civil as well as criminal, in the established courts of law that it is sought to protect by making those who commit criminal contempt’s of court subject to summary