SANJAY DHAR
Aditya Raj Kaul – Appellant
Versus
Naeem Akhter – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
“Those who fill a public position must not be too thin skinned in reference to comments made upon them. It would often happen that observations would be made upon public men which they know from the bottom of their hearts were underserved and unjust; yet they must bear with them and submit to be misunderstood for a time.”
(Per Cock Burn, CJ, in Seymour V. Butten worth (1862) 3 F&F 372)
“Whoever fills a public position renders himself open thereto. He must accept an attack as a necessary, though unpleasant, appendage to his office.”
(Per Bramewll, B in Kelly V. Sherlock, (1866) LRIQB, 689)
1. Petitioners have challenged the complaint filed by the respondent against them before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, alleging commission of offences under Section 499 and 500 RPC, as also the order dated 27.12.2018 passed by the said Magistrate whereby cognizance of the offences has been taken and process has been issued against the petitioners. They have also challenged order dated 23rd February, 2019 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, whereby bailable warrants for securing attendance of the petitioners have been issued.
2. Petitioner No.3 happens to
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and another v. Special Judicial Magistrate and others
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India
Express Newspaper (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd. v. Union of India
Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd. v. SEBI
R. Rajagopal alias R.R. Gopal and another v. State of T.N. and others
Jawaharlal Darda and others v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar and another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.