Skip to main content

Old age and long distance travel not valid grounds for transfer of Case

Whether old age of the accused and long distance travel difficulty, can be a ground to transfer a criminal case? Madras High Court, in a recent order, observed that such concerns are not a valid ground for transferring a case. The accused, in a corruption case, had sought transfer of Trial from a Court situated 1000 kilometres away from his place of residence, on the ground of his inconvenience on account of his age as well as his present place of residence. The Prosecution contested his plea on the ground that case has become part-heard and some witnesses have already been examined. Justice P.Devadass observed: “it is quite natural in the present set up, he has to undergo some inconvenience. But, the Court has to see whether by this his defence is prejudiced. He has engaged a counsel to defend himself. Except the stated inconvenience, there is no bottleneck for defending himself as against the charges levelled against him. On account of the said inconvenience, we cannot transfer the case, because it does not appear to be a valid ground.”

Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/old-age-long-distance-travel-not-valid-grounds-transfer-case-madras-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Infringement of copyright or other rights under the Copyright Act is a cognizable, non-bailable offence

Citation : M/s Knit Pro International Versus The State of NCT of Delhi, Criminal Appeal No. 807 Of 2022;  Date of Judgment/Order : May 20, 2022 Court/Tribunal : The Supreme Court Of India Corum : M.R. Shah; B.V. Nagarathna, Jj. Background The Appellant had filed an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and sought directions from the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for the registration of FIR against the respondent No.2 herein for the offences under Sections 51, 63 & 64 of the Copyright Act read with Section 420 of the IPC. The said application was allowed and an FIR was registered against the Respondent. The Respondent in turn prayed before the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings on the sole ground that the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act is not a cognizable and a non-bailable offence which was allowed. This appeal is against the order of the High Court. Judgment The Supreme Court observed that the short question whi...
Post a Comment
Read more