Madras High Court asked Immigration Bureau to treat Mother as Natural Guardian of Minor


Madras High Court asked Immigration Bureau to treat Mother as Natural Guardian of Minor

The Madras High Court, has asked the Bureau of Immigration to consider the application of registering minor child as “Overseas Citizen of India” and issue certificate without insisting upon custody order of guardianship from mother who had obtained divorce from his father against an ex parte decree which has not been challenged till date.

The Court further said that the role of mother as natural guardian is recognized in today’s world

Apex Court refused to pay compensation to acquitted persons for their wrongful arrest in Akshardham Attack Case

The Apex Court said that the acquitted persons in Akshardham terror attack case will not get compensation for their “wrongful arrest”.

The Apex Court termed it as “dangerous precedent if the acquitted persons are allowed to seek compensation for their wrongful arrest”

Government proposal for naming Retired Judges in Panel seeking evaluation of Judges appointments rejected by Chief Justice of India

Chief Justice of India expressed his reservations over the Government’s decision to establish a committee of retired Judges to evaluate the applications of candidates before forwarding them to the collegium to decide whether to recommend their names for elevation or appointment as Judges.

It was proposed at the Apex Court level and 24 others for each of the High Courts. The decision came up during a meeting held between the CJI, External Affairs Minister and Law Minister at the CJI’s residence.

Apex Court held that it is impossible to initiate attachment proceedings against an Accused who died during pendency of Trial

The Apex Court observed that property of a person who was accused of an offence of misappropriation but who died during the pendency of the criminal trial cannot be attached in the hands of his legal representatives under the provisions of Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

Apex Court held that criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty and such proceedings are contrary to the very foundation of criminal jurisprudence. The Court also observed that the finding of trial court that a person who died during the pendency of trial is alone responsible for the offences is completely vitiated as null and void because a criminal court cannot continue proceedings against a dead person and find him guilty.

Apex Court held that non-compliance of mandatory provisions relating to search and seizure vitiates conviction

The Apex Court held that like Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, vitiates the Conviction under the said Act. Division Bench of the Apex Court upheld a High Court judgment which had acquitted the accused on this ground.

The Bench observed: “The present is not a case where the Station House Officer suddenly carried out search at a public place. The Station House Officer in his statement has also come up with the facts and case to prove compliance of Section 42. When search is conducted after recording information under Section 42(1), the provisions of Section 42 has to be complied with.” Referring to Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, the Court further said: “The present is not a case where insofar as compliance of Section 42(1) proviso even an arguments based on substantial compliance is raised there is total non-compliance of Section 42(1) proviso. As observed above, Section 43 being not attracted search was to be conducted after complying the provisions of Section 42. We thus, conclude that the High Court has rightly held that non-compliance of Section 42(1) and Section 42(2) were proved on the record and the High Court has not committed any error in setting aside the conviction order.”

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.