Back
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, B. R. GAVAI
Vivek Kumar Gaurav – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner entitled to chargesheet copy. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner argues pre-charge rights insufficient. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's limitation on legislative direction. (Para 3) |
| 4. petition dismissed; pending applications disposed. (Para 4 , 5) |
ORDER :
1. Ms. Archana Dave Pathak, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent states that the concern of the petitioner is taken care of in the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is stated that as per the provision contained therein the complainant/victim is entitled to get the copy of the chargesheet.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said provision does not take complete care of the petitioner, inasmuch as the complainant/victim would not be entitled to appear at a pre-charge stage.
3. The Parliament after considering various aspects has come up with a new enactment. In writ jurisdiction, neither the High Court nor this Court can direct the legislature to enact a law in a particular manner.
4. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. The special leave petition is, accordingly dismissed.
5. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) di
The court emphasized that in criminal trials, accused persons must be given an opportunity to defend their case, and failure to do so renders the order invalid.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
