11 Criminal Laws you should know | The Wall

We share daily criminal law updates on our facebook page (Criminal Law Review) under ‘The Wall’ Category. This is a compilation of our first 11 updates [03-16 June’18]

1. Metropolitan Area:

   • Under Section 8(1) of CrPC, Metropolitan area is when the state government, by notification, declares that, any area in the state (city or town) whose population exceeds one million shall be a metropolitan area.

2. D.K. Basu v. State of W.B., (1997) 1 SCC 416

   • An arrestee shall be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation.

3. Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors.

   • If two views are possible on the evidence adduced, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, view favourable to the accused should be adopted.

4. M/s Agradoot Publishers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr v. Rakibul Hussain & Anr., Crl Rev. P. 456/2017 (Ghy HC)

   • The right of the accused to get himself examined subject to fulfilment of condition prescribed in S. 315 of the CrPC is a legal right.

5. Usha Jain & Anr v. State of U.P & Anr. [Allahabad HC]

   • Recording of satisfaction by judicial magistrate regarding effective service of summon is a condition precedent for issuance of bailable and non-bailable warrant.

6. 41-B

   • Every police officer while making an arrest shall bear an accurate, visible and clear identification of his name which will facilitate easy identification.

7. Kanhaiya Lal v State of Rajasthan, (2014) 4 SCC 715.

   • The circumstance of last together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime.

8. State of M.P. v. Dayal Sahu, (2005) 8 SCC 122.

   • Once the statement of prosecutrix (rape victim) inspires confidence and is accepted by the court as such, conviction can be based only on the solitary evidence of prosecutrix.

9. Doctrine of Per-Incuriam

   • The rule of per-incuriam can be applied where a court omits to consider a binding precedent rendered on the same issue or where a court omits to consider any statute while deciding that issue.

10. Bodh Raj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45.

    • The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of crime becomes impossible.

11. Subramanium Swamy v.ManMohan Singh & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 64.

    • Cognizance is taking judicial notice by the court of law, possessing jurisdiction, on a cause or matter presented before it so as to decide whether there is any basis for initiating proceedings and determination of the cause or matter judicially.

Follow us on Facebook and Instagram.

Disclaimer: Although we try to ensure that the information provided, whether in relation to the products, services, or offering or otherwise provided (hereinafter mentioned as “INFORMATION”) on the website is correct at the time of publishing, we or any third parties do not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy, timeliness, performance, completeness or suitability of the information and materials found or offered on this website for any particular purpose. It shall be your own responsibility to ensure that any products, services or information available through this website meet your specific requirements. Neither the website nor any person/organization acting on its behalf may accept any legal liability/responsibility.

Terms-and-conditions/ (Click Here)