Confused about adding accused during trial in India? The Supreme Court clarifies the standard for using Section 319 CrPC, emphasizing stronger evidence beyond mere allegations. Know your legal rights and stay informed! Supreme Court Clarifies Standard for Adding Accused Under Section 319 of CrPC The Supreme Court of India has recently issued a judgment clarifying the standard for adding accused persons under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section empowers courts to proceed against individuals not named in the chargesheet if they appear to be guilty of an offense. Key Points of the Judgment: Case Background: An FIR was filed against an individual for house trespass and assault. The complaint mentioned the presence of two other individuals during the incident but did not specifically accuse them. The complainant later filed a Section 319 Crpc application arguing that the investigating authorities omitted their names. Lower Court Decisions: Supreme Court’s Reasoning: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court‘s decision as it relied solely on a “prima facie” satisfaction based on vague allegations. The Court stressed that the standard is higher and requires stronger evidence, exceeding a “prima facie” case but not reaching the level of conviction certainty. Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order, and upheld the trial court’s decision. Significance: This judgment clarifies the legal threshold for invoking Section 319 Crpc to prevent its misuse. Finally, It emphasizes the need for substantial evidence beyond mere speculation to add additional accused persons […]
News Tags: Legal implications
In a recent legal development, a city civil court in Chennai has ruled against Education Loan Default, mandating the repayment of ₹2.9 lakh to the State Bank of India (SBI). This court order is related to a loan sanctioned in April 2013 for the educational pursuit of the son, Vignesh Kumar, aiming to undertake a postgraduate degree in computer science. Background and Loan Agreement The court’s directive requires both Vignesh Kumar and his father, Muniraj, to repay the original loan amount along with accrued interest. The court has imposed an interest rate of 9% from the date of filing the suit until the decree date. Subsequently, an interest rate of 6% starts from the decree date until the actual realization of the suit amount. Agreement Terms and Education Loan Default The State Bank of India had sanctioned a loan of ₹1.6 lakh, and an agreement was reached in June 2016 between the bank and the borrowers for the repayment schedule. The borrowers committed to repaying the loan in 60 EMIs of ₹3,679 each. Additionally, they agreed to pay interest on floating rate loans and any other debits raised in the account, including charges and fees, in instalments from June 2016 onwards. Despite the agreed-upon terms, no payments have been made by the borrowers to date, prompting the State Bank of India to file a suit in 2021. Court’s Ruling and Implications on Education Loan Default Assistant Judge S Priya delivered a decisive ruling, declaring that a total of ₹2.9 lakh […]
The apex court, in a hearing involving multiple petitioners such as Karti Chidambaram and Anil Deshmukh, scrutinized the validity of procedures specified in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. A bench of Supreme Court judges, including Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, and C.T. Ravi Kumar, concluded that money laundering is a crime that significantly harms the country’s economy and financial system. It has the potential to paralyze or even derail the economy, making it even more severe than murder. This is why a special Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), was enacted to address and combat this serious offense. In essence, the court emphasized that money laundering is a graver crime than murder. Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling on Money Laundering: A Crime More Severe than Murder The Supreme Court made a noteworthy observation, emphasizing that money laundering isn’t a minor crime; it’s a first-degree crime, more serious than murder. This is due to its association with activities like drug trading and terrorism, which challenge the country’s integrity and sovereignty. The matter was brought before the Apex court to assess the validity of various provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, as they were alleged to violate both natural justice principles under the Indian Constitution and various criminal laws. Money laundering isn’t a trivial offense; it falls within the category of more severe and heinous crimes, surpassing even murder in its impact. The entire financial well-being of a country hinges on its economy, which can be derailed by […]
