21. VIPUL GUPTA VS STATE - 23 Jan 18

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 380, 411, 420, 406, 409, 468, 471, 120B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1860 - Section ... FIR No.315/2005 was registered on the basis of a subsequent event/ cause of action under Section 380, 411 read with Section 120B ... It was held: (SCC p. 440, para 7) “7. ... To assail the order dated 30.07.2015 Criminal Appeals were preferred before the Supreme Court by VLS, vide Criminal Appeal Nos. 99

India - Delhi

22. Dhayalu VS Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department - 05 Jan 16

11(5) - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 73 – Criminal Trial - "Goonda" – Detention Order - Maintenance of public order ... Detaining Authority [fourth contention] is concerned, it is obvious from a comparison of English version granting arrest warrant under Section ... Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 147,148, 341, 427, 302 - Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 – Sections 2(f) and ... the COFEPOSA Act, which is similar to Section 11(5) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. ... by his order in Detention Order No. 156/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 17.11.2015, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section ... Section 8(e) of the COFEPOSA Act reads as follows:-- "8.(e).

India - Madras

23. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) VS Union of India - 26 Sep 18

MAIN POINTSPer majority ‘Benefits’ and ‘services’ as mentioned in Section 7 should be those which have the colour of some kind of subsidies etc., namely, welfare schemes of the Government whereby Government is doling out such benefits which are targeted at a particular deprived class. The expenditure thereof has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC etc. cannot make the requirement of Aadhaar mandatory.For the enrolment of children under the Aadhaar Act, it would be essential to have the consent of their parents/guardian.On attaining the age of majority, such children who are enrolled under Aadhaar with the consent of their parents, shall be given the right to exit from Aadhaar, if they so choose.Insofar as the school admissions of children are concerned, requirement of Aadhaar would not be compulsory as it is neither a service nor subsidy. Further, having regard to the fact that a child between the age of 6 to 14 years has the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution, school admission cannot be treated as ‘benefit’ as well.Benefits to children between 6 to 14 years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, likewise, shall not require mandatory Aadhaar enrolment.For availing the benefits of other welfare schemes which are covered by Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, though enrolment number can be insisted, it would be subject to the consent of the parents.No child shall be denied benefit of any of these schemes if, for some reasons, he/she is not able to produce the Aadhaar number and the benefit shall be given by verifying the identity on the basis of any other documents. Regulation 27(1) struck down, Regulation 26 needs suitable amendment, Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act read down. Section 33(2) struck down.That portion of Section 57 which enables body corporate and individual to seek authentication struck down, All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being an inherent part of right to privacy. Aadhaar Act meets the tests of proportionality and balancingSection 2(d) struck down.Section 29 in fact imposes a restriction on sharing information and is, therefore, valid as it protects the interests of Aadhaar number holders. Other provisions of Aadhaar Act including Section 59 held to be valid, Aadhaar Act meets the concept of Limited Government, Good Governance and Constitutional Trust.Aadhaar Act is validly passed as a ‘Money Bill’.Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held valid.Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. (Dissenting) The phrase “shall be final” used under Article 110(3) aims at avoiding any controversy on the issue as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill, with respect to the Rajya Sabha and before the President. The language used in Article 110(3) does not exclude judicial review of the Speaker’s decision. This also applies to Article 199(3).The immunity from judicial review provided to parliamentary proceedings under Article 122 is limited to instances involving “irregularity of procedure”. Validity of proceedings in Parliament or a State Legislature can be subject to judicial review when there is a substantive illegality or a constitutional violation.Article 255 has no relation with the decision of the Speaker on whether a Bill is a Money Bill. Decisions in Mohd Saeed Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar are overruled.The existence of and the role of the Rajya Sabha, as an institution of federal bicameralism in the Indian Parliament, constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. A Bill, which has provisions which fall within subclauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1) and provisions which fall outside their scope, will not qualify to be a Money Bill. Section 7 fails to fulfil the requirement of a Money Bill. The provisions of the Aadhaar Act do not lie within the scope of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). The Aadhaar Act declared unconstitutional for failing to meet the necessary requirements to have been certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1).Doctrine of pith and substance is used to examine whether the legislature has the competence to enact a law with regard to any of the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The doctrine cannot be invoked to declare whether a Bill satisfies the requirements set out in Article 110 of the Constitution to be certified a Money Bill. There is a legitimate state aim in maintaining a system of identification to ensure that the welfare benefits provided by the State reach the beneficiaries who are entitled, without diversion.Adequate norms must be laid down for each step from the collection to retention of biometric data. Sections 29(1) and (2) of the Act create a distinction between two classes of information (core biometric information and identity information), which are integral to individual identity and require equal protection. Section 29(4) suffers from over breadth.Sections 2(g), (j), (k) and (t) suffer from over breadth. There is no clarity on how an individual is supposed to update his/her biometric information, in case the biometric information mismatches with the data stored in CIDR. The Aadhaar project has failed to account for and remedy the flaws in its framework and design which has led to serious instances of exclusion of eligible beneficiaries. The Aadhaar project violates widely recognized data minimisation principle.The architecture of Aadhaar poses a risk of potential surveillance activities through the Aadhaar database. The protection of the data of 1.2 billion citizens is a question of national security and cannot be subjected to the mere terms and conditions of a normal contract.The Act does not place any institutional accountability upon UIDAI to protect the database of citizens’ personal information. The Aadhaar Act is also silent on the liability of UIDAI and its personnel in case of their non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or the regulations.Section 47 of the Act violates citizens’ right to seek remedies. No substantive provisions, such as those providing data minimization, have been laid down as guiding principles for the oversight mechanism provided under Section 33(2), which permits disclosure of identity information and authentication records in the interest of national security.Since Section 57 is manifestly arbitrary, it suffers from overbreadth and violates Article 14.Section 7 suffers from overbreadth since the broad definitions of the expressions ‘services and ‘benefits’ enable the government to regulate almost every facet of its engagement with citizens under the Aadhaar platform. Section 7 is therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 in relation to the inclusion of services and benefits as defined.The legitimate aim of the State can be fulfilled by adopting less intrusive measures as opposed to the mandatory enforcement of the Aadhaar scheme as the sole repository of identification. When Aadhaar is seeded into every database, it becomes a bridge across discreet data silos, which allows anyone with access to this information to re-construct a profile of an individual’s life. This is contrary to the right to privacy and poses severe threats due to potential surveillance.The State has failed to satisfy that the targeted delivery of subsidies which animate the right to life entails a necessary sacrifice of the right to individual autonomy, data protection and dignity when both these rights are protected by the Constitution.Section 59 seeks to retrospectively validate the actions of the Central Government done prior to the Aadhaar Act pursuant to Notifications dated 28 January 2009. and 12 September 2015. Section 59 does not validate actions of the state governments or of private entities. Moreover, the notification of 2009 did not authorise the collection of biometric data. Consequently, the validation of actions taken under the 2009 notification by Section 59 does not save the collection of biometric data prior to the enforcement of the Act. Section 59 fails to meet the test of a validating law.Since the Aadhaar Act itself is now held to be unconstitutional, the seeding of Aadhaar to PAN under Article 139AA does not stand independently.The 2017 amendments to the PMLA Rules fail to satisfy the test of proportionality. The decision to link Aadhaar numbers with mobile SIM cards is neither valid nor constitutional. The biometric information and Aadhaar details collected by Telecom Service Providers shall be deleted forthwith and no use of the said information or details shall be made by TSPs or any agency or person or their behalf.Defiance of judicial orders (both interim and final) be it by the government or by citizens negates the basis of the rule of law. The Aadhaar Act, the Rules and Regulations framed under it, and the framework prior to the enactment of the Act are unconstitutional.The existing data which has been collected shall not be destroyed for a period of one year. During this period, the data shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever. At the end of one year, if no fresh legislation has been enacted by the Union government in conformity with the principles enunciated in this judgment, the data shall be destroyed.Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (Concurring)Requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass threefold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).Section 47 cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009 and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill. The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

use of Aadhaar subject to procedure and obligations under section 8 – Some portion of Section 57 found offending and declared unconstitutional ... provided under the Act to the enrolments done earlier – Article 20(1), Constitution of India – Application of criminal ... made available to the Aadhaar number holder who do not wish to submit identity information – Nor do the regulations specify the procedure ... Section 8 sets out the procedure for authentication. ... While the scheme of criminal procedure as well as evidence law mandates interference with physical privacy through statutory provisions ... shall be subject to the procedure and obligations under Section 8 and Chapter VI.”

India - Supreme Court

24. State of Punjab VS Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar - 07 Dec 11

(1) Judicial bias – The allegations of judicial bias are required to be scrutinised taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case in hand – The court must bear in mind that a mere ground of appearance of bias and not actual bias is enough to vitiate the judgment/order – Actual proof of prejudice in such a case may make the case of the party concerned stronger, but such a proof is not required – In fact, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party – However, where such an apprehension exists, the trial/judgment/order etc. is vitiated for want of impartiality. Such judgment/order is a nullity and the trial “coram non-judice”. (Para 20) (2) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 115 – Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right – It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert a right – There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Para 23) (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156 – When CBI inquiry can be ordered – A constitutional court can direct the CBI to investigate into the case provided the court after examining the allegations in the complaint reaches a conclusion that the complainant could make out prima facie, a case against the accused – However, the person against whom the investigation is sought, is to be impleaded as a party and must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard – CBI cannot be directed to have a roving inquiry as to whether a person was involved in the alleged unlawful activities – The court can direct CBI investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the view that the accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it may prejudice the cause of the complainant, and it is necessary so to do in order to do complete justice and make the investigation credible. (Para 48) (4) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 362 – Review/Alter judgment – The criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgment as the Judge becomes functus officio – Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. (Para 30) (5) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice – Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. – If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Cr.P.C. , and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision – In case, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, issues directions contravening the statutory provisions laying down the procedure of investigation, it would be unwarranted in law. (Paras 31, 38) (6) Constitution of India, Art 226 – Investigation – The High Court can always issue appropriate direction in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution at the behest of an aggrieved person, if the court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an Investigating Officer malafide or the matter is not investigated at all – Even in such a case, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can insist only for the observance of process as provided for in the Cr.P.C. (Para 34) (7) Constitution of India, Art 226 – Second Writ of Habeas Corpus – Res judicata – A second writ petition for issuing a writ of habeas corpus is barred by principles of res judicata. (Para 62) (8) Jurisdiction of the Bench – No Judge or a Bench of Judges assumes jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Chief Justice – The Bench gets jurisdiction from the assignment made by the Chief Justice and the Judge cannot choose as which matter he should entertain and he cannot entertain a petition in respect of which jurisdiction has not been assigned to him by the Chief Justice as the order passed by the court may be without jurisdiction and made the Judge coram non-judice. (Paras 42, 43)

/Alter judgment – The criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the ... case, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, issues directions contravening the statutory provisions laying down the procedure ... Justice X – There could be no justification for the Bench concerned to entertain applications filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as ... No departure from this procedure is permissible. ... proceedings or set the criminal law in motion. ... INHERENT POWERS UNDER SECTION 482 Cr.P.C.

India - Crimes

25. State of Punjab VS Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar - 07 Dec 11

(1) Judicial bias ¯ The allegations of judicial bias are required to be scrutinised taking into consideration the factual matrix of the case in hand ¯ The court must bear in mind that a mere ground of appearance of bias and not actual bias is enough to vitiate the judgment/order ¯ Actual proof of prejudice in such a case may make the case of the party concerned stronger, but such a proof is not required ¯ In fact, what is relevant is the reasonableness of the apprehension in that regard in the mind of the party ¯ However, where such an apprehension exists, the trial/judgment/order etc. is vitiated for want of impartiality. Such judgment/order is a nullity and the trial “coram non-judice”. (Para 20) (2) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ¯ Section 115 ¯ Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right ¯ It involves conscious abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which except for such a waiver, a party could have enjoyed. In fact, it is an agreement not to assert a right ¯ There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Para 23) (3) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 156 ¯ When CBI inquiry can be ordered ¯ A constitutional court can direct the CBI to investigate into the case provided the court after examining the allegations in the complaint reaches a conclusion that the complainant could make out prima facie, a case against the accused ¯ However, the person against whom the investigation is sought, is to be impleaded as a party and must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard ¯ CBI cannot be directed to have a roving inquiry as to whether a person was involved in the alleged unlawful activities ¯ The court can direct CBI investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the view that the accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it may prejudice the cause of the complainant, and it is necessary so to do in order to do complete justice and make the investigation credible. (Para 48) (4) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 362 ¯ Review/Alter judgment ¯ The criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or delete any words, except to correct the clerical or arithmetical error as specifically been provided under the statute itself after pronouncement of the judgment as the Judge becomes functus officio ¯ Any mistake or glaring omission is left to be corrected only by the appropriate forum in accordance with law. (Para 30) (5) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ¯ Section 482 ¯ The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is intended to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice ¯ Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. ¯ If any consideration of the facts by way of review is not permissible under the Cr.P.C. , and is expressly barred, it is not for the Court to exercise its inherent power to reconsider the matter and record a conflicting decision ¯ In case, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, issues directions contravening the statutory provisions laying down the procedure of investigation, it would be unwarranted in law. (Paras 31, 38) (6) Constitution of India, Art 226 ¯ Investigation ¯ The High Court can always issue appropriate direction in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution at the behest of an aggrieved person, if the court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an Investigating Officer malafide or the matter is not investigated at all ¯ Even in such a case, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can insist only for the observance of process as provided for in the Cr.P.C. (Para 34) (7) Constitution of India, Art 226 ¯ Second Writ of Habeas Corpus ¯ Res judicata ¯ A second writ petition for issuing a writ of habeas corpus is barred by principles of res judicata. (Para 62) (8) Jurisdiction of the Bench ¯ No Judge or a Bench of Judges assumes jurisdiction unless the case is allotted to him or them under the orders of the Chief Justice ¯ The Bench gets jurisdiction from the assignment made by the Chief Justice and the Judge cannot choose as which matter he should entertain and he cannot entertain a petition in respect of which jurisdiction has not been assigned to him by the Chief Justice as the order passed by the court may be without jurisdiction and made the Judge coram non-judice. (Paras 42, 43)

362 ¯ Review/Alter judgment ¯ The criminal justice delivery system does not clothe the court to add or ... case, the High Court in exercise of its inherent powers, issues directions contravening the statutory provisions laying down the procedure ... Justice X ¯ There could be no justification for the Bench concerned to entertain applications filed under Section a href=act:78~ ... The inherent power of the court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is saved only where an order has been passed by the criminal court which ... No departure from this procedure is permissible. ... The order cannot be passed by-passing the procedure prescribed by law.

India - Supreme Court

26. Arun Kumar VS Manorma Devi - 11 Jan 73

Procedure-Section 529, 177-Cognizance taken by a magistrate not having the territorial jurisdiction-Effect of-defect whether curable ... of criminal courts. ... one criminal court to another criminal court in the same sessions divisions". ... " court to any other criminal court.

India - Patna

27. VALSAN, S/O. VASUDEVAN VS STATE OF KERALA - 14 Jul 21

Procedure when bond has been forfeited - Without discussing application of sub-section(3) of Section 446 Cr.P.C. and benefit conferred for remission of portion of penalty, cannot be said to have force of binding precedent.

Result: Criminal appeal is allowed ... Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 446 and 446(3) - NDPS Act - Section 20 (b) (ii)(B) - Punishment ... The order is totally silent about the application of Section 446(3) Cr.P.C.. ... The criminal appeal is allowed accordingly. ... Section 440 Cr.P.C. cannot be applied while dealing with forfeiture of bail bond under Section ... Section 440 Cr.P.C. basically deals with fixation of bond amount or reduction thereof and it should be done with due regard to the

India - Kerala

28. MOHAMMED AJMAL MOHAMMAD AMIR KASAB @ ABU MUJAHID VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 29 Aug 12

1. The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions. An action tending to violate another persons right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression. 2. The right to access to a lawyer in India is not based on the Miranda principles, as protection against self-incrimination, for which there are more than adequate safeguards in Indian laws. 3. The object of the criminal law process is to find out the truth and not to shield the accused from the consequences of his wrongdoing. 4. Unless the accused voluntarily makes an informed decision and tells the court, in clear and unambiguous words, that he does not want the assistance of any lawyer and would rather defend himself personally, the obligation to provide him with a lawyer at the commencement of the trial is absolute. 5. The protection of the privilege of the accused against self- incrimination is cast as a mandatory duty upon the magistrate, a judicial authority, under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 164 of Crpc. 6. Voluntary statements are not proscribed by Article 20(3) and do not amount to violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. 7. The provisions of the CrPC and the Evidence Act fully incorporate the Constitutional guarantees, and that the statutory framework for the criminal process in India affords the fullest protection to personal liberty and dignity of an individual. 8. The transcripts are by no means any confessional statements made under arrest and they are fully covered by the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 120B read with Section 302 , Sections 121,34,109 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967- Section ... accused (Paras 454, 455, 468) ... Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section ... 164- Confession -Admissibility of -The test to judge the Constitutional and legal acceptability of a confession recorded under Section ... But the mainstream criminal law procedure in India, which is governed by the CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act, has a fundamentally ... Subramanium submitted that the Miranda principle has no application to normal criminal procedure in India because similar safeguards ... It is, therefore, wrong to argue that what is said in context of the POTA should also apply to the mainstream criminal law procedure

India - Supreme Court

29. Kasab @ Abu Mujahid VS State of Maharashtra - 29 Aug 12

1. The freedom of expression, like all other freedoms under Article 19, is subject to reasonable restrictions. An action tending to violate another person’s right to life guaranteed under Article 21 or putting the national security in jeopardy can never be justified by taking the plea of freedom of speech and expression. 2. The right to access to a lawyer in India is not based on the Miranda principles, as protection against self-incrimination, for which there are more than adequate safeguards in Indian laws.3. The object of the criminal law process is to find out the truth and not to shield the accused from the consequences of his wrongdoing. 4. Unless the accused voluntarily makes an informed decision and tells the court, in clear and unambiguous words, that he does not want the assistance of any lawyer and would rather defend himself personally, the obligation to provide him with a lawyer at the commencement of the trial is absolute.5. The protection of the privilege of the accused against self- incrimination is cast as a mandatory duty upon the magistrate, a judicial authority, under sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 164 of Crpc.6. Voluntary statements are not proscribed by Article 20(3) and do not amount to violation of the privilege against self-incrimination. 7. The provisions of the CrPC and the Evidence Act fully incorporate the Constitutional guarantees, and that the statutory framework for the criminal process in India affords the fullest protection to personal liberty and dignity of an individual.8. The transcripts are by no means any confessional statements made under arrest and they are fully covered by the provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act.

(i) Indian Penal Code,1860-Section 120B read with Section 302 , Sections 121,34,109 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ... - Section 16 -Prosecution of appellant along with two others for engaging in conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India ... 164- Confession –Admissibility of -The test to judge the Constitutional and legal acceptability of a confession recorded under Section ... Subramanium submitted that the Miranda principle has no application to normal criminal procedure in India because similar safeguards ... Subramanium submitted that the Miranda principle has no application to normal criminal procedure in India because similar safeguards ... Subramanium submitted that the Miranda principle has no application to normal criminal procedure in India because similar safeguards

India - Crimes

30. Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Etc. VS State of Bihar - 10 Dec 15

The Orissa Act is not hit by Article 199 of the Constitution. The establishment of Special Courts under the Orissa Act as well as the Bihar Act is not violative of Article 247 of the Constitution. The provisions pertaining to declaration and effect of declaration as contained in Section 5 and 6 of the Orissa Act and the Bihar Act are constitutionally valid as they do not suffer from any unreasonableness or vagueness. The Chapter III of the both the Acts providing for confiscation of property or money or both neither violates Article 14 nor Article 20(1) nor Article 21 of the Constitution. The procedure provided for confiscation and the proceedings before the Authorised Officer do not cause any discomfort either to Article 14 or to Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The provision relating to appeal in both the Acts is treated as constitutional on the basis of reasoning that the power subsists with the High Court to extend the order of stay on being satisfied. The proviso to Section 18(1) of the Orissa Act does not fall foul of Article 21 of the Constitution. The provisions contained in Section 19 pertaining to refund of confiscated money or property does not suffer from any kind of unconstitutionality. Sub-rules (a) and (f) Rule 12 of the 2010 Rules being violative of the language employed in the Bihar Act are ultra vires or anything contained therein pertaining to the summary procedure is also declared as ultra vires the Bihar Act.

nbsp;(e) Constitution of India – Article 254(2) – Procedure ... nbsp;(w) Bihar Special Court Rules, 2010 – Rule 12(a) and (f) – Bihar Special Courts Act, 2009 provides to follow warrant procedure ... (Para 161) ... CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1372 OF 2012 ... p align="justify ... Section 8 deals with the procedure and powers of the Special Courts. ... Section 8 stipulates the procedure and powers of the Special Courts. ... Section 13 deals with disposal of attached property upon termination of criminal proceedings.

India - Supreme Court