Juvenile Justice* – Age of juvenility

‬: *Latest Important decision reported in ALL SCR (Cri) February 2017 part*

*Dt.24/01/2017*

*Juvenile Justice* – Age of juvenility – Accused was 17 years old on date of commission of crime i.e. on 27/3/1998 – Age of juvenility fixed at 18 yrs. by JJ Act, 2000 – Same shall be applied retrospectively – Therefore, accused would be entitled to be treated as juvenile with reference to said offence…. *2017 ALL SCR (Cri) 287*
[27/02 6:44 am] ‪+91 90325 46288‬: 2006 All MR (cri) 1987
Ganesh Shetty vs State of Maharashtra
Sec.311.... recalling of witness....absence of cross examination by Advocate,due to his business in other session case..... absence of Advocate can cause serious prejudice to the case if accused..... application for recalling of witness can be allowed.
[27/02 6:45 am] ‪+91 90325 46288‬: *⭐Handcuffed, 4 Lakhs compensation granted, action ordered against police:*

Compensatory Justice
Illegal hand cuffing - Claim for compensation -Petitioner was Jomalist and he published news items for exposing ill - 
deeds of Government Officers - He was paraded in hand cuffed condition from bus stand to police station by police constable - On day of incident he was already in police custody for offence u/S. 384 IPC - Evidence
not showing that Magistrate had permitted his hand cuffing - Hand cuffing of petitioner
was in violation of fundamental rights -
Amount of 4 lakh granted as compensation - Also direction given to initiate disciplinary proceedings against officers for fixing
responsibility for lapse.

Case:
*Satish Banwarilal Sharma Vs. Union Territory of Diu, Daman and Dadra & Nagar Haveli.*

Citation:
*2017 ALL MR (Cri) 406*
[27/02 6:45 am] ‪+91 90325 46288‬: *Latest Important decision reported in ALL SCR February 2017 part*

*Dt.02/01/2017*

*Elections* – Interpretation of words “his religion” in S.123(3) of R.P. Act – Purposive and not literal interpretation is to be adopted – Said words should not be interpreted to mean only candidate’s religion or that of his rival candidates – Purposive interpretation in present social context requires a broad interpretation – Words “his religion” therefore take within its sweep religion of election candidates, their agents as also religion of voters – Vote appeal on ground of anybody’s religion is prohibited – Narrow interpretation taking only candidate’s religion, disapproved…. *2017 ALL SCR 337*
[27/02 6:49 am] ‪+91 90325 46288‬: *Latest Important decision reported in ALL SCR (Cri) February 2017 part*

*Dt.31/01/2017*

*Appeal against Conviction* – Power of appellate Court to order retrial – Scope of exercise…. *2017 ALL SCR (Cri) 289*
[27/02 6:50 am] ‪+91 90325 46288‬: *Latest Important decision reported in ALL SCR (Cri) February 2017 part*

*Dt.03/01/2017*

*Recovery Evidence* – No statutory provision which mandates taking signature of accused on recovery panchnama – Hence, plea that recovery panchnama was inadmissible in evidence for not containing signature of accused – Not tenable…. *2017 ALL SCR (Cri) 182*