SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 386

ARIJIT PASAYAT, P.SATHASIVAM
JAKIA NASIM AHESAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
M.S. Ganesh, Senior Advocate [Prashant Bhushan (Amicus Curiae), Ms R.K. Banju, K. Seshachary, Ms Madhulika Mohta and Ms Aparna Bhat, Advocates] for the Petitioners.

ORDER

1. The High Court's order does not render the petitioners remediless. But, various important aspects arise for consideration. In a given case, a person who has knowledge of the commission of a crime may not be examined by the police.

2. The question is what is the remedy available to such person? We, therefore, issue notice only to Respondents 1 and 2 and the Union of India. Though, in the proceedings, the Central Bureau of Investigation is Respondent 3, there is presently no need for issuing any notice to CBI, as we would like to have the views of the Union of India also.

3. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel has agreed to assist the Court as an amicus curiae. We would also request other learned senior members of the Bar to assist the Court, as the question is of vital importance in the administration of criminal justice.

Court Masters

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top