๐•ƒ๐”ผ๐”พ๐”ธ๐•ƒ โ„‚๐•Œโ„โ„๐”ผโ„•๐•‹ ๐”ธ๐”ฝ๐”ฝ๐”ธ๐•€โ„๐•Š ๐”น๐•ช- โ„•๐•’๐•ฅ๐•ฆ๐•ฃ๐•’๐• ๐•๐•ฆ๐•ค๐•ฅ๐•š๐•”๐•– โ„ข
18.9K subscribers
852 photos
11 videos
1.72K files
3.1K links
๐Ÿ“ฒ Contact โ†’ @CurrentLegalGKBOT

โ˜บ๏ธ 360ยฐ Cases on topics.

Keywords: Civil Judge, MPCJ, UP PSCJ, Haryana ADA, DJS, CBI APP, RJS, JLO, CLAT PG, Supreme Court law clerk, AIBE, IBPS, UGC NET.
_____________
๐Ÿง  Daily Quiz โ†’ @LegalQuizzes

โณ๐Ÿš€ Enjoy Learning!
Download Telegram
๐•ƒ๐”ผ๐”พ๐”ธ๐•ƒ โ„‚๐•Œโ„โ„๐”ผโ„•๐•‹ ๐”ธ๐”ฝ๐”ฝ๐”ธ๐•€โ„๐•Š ๐”น๐•ช- โ„•๐•’๐•ฅ๐•ฆ๐•ฃ๐•’๐• ๐•๐•ฆ๐•ค๐•ฅ๐•š๐•”๐•– โ„ข
S.223 BNSS Which Gives Right Of Hearing To Accused Before Cognizance Can Apply To Complaint Filed Before July 01, 2024: P&H High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/punjab-and-haryana-high-court/223-bnss-accused-right-to-hearing-cognizance-retrospectiveโ€ฆ
Issuing process of a criminal offence has serious repercussions for the accused, and that is the reason the Legislature deemed it appropriate to provide prior hearing to the person sought to be summoned. The right of hearing is one of the most cherished rights in the criminal jurisprudence, and is embedded in the Principles of Natural Justice permeating to the Constitutional scheme of things, especially Articles 14 and 21 guaranteeing the right to fair trial. Therefore, there is no reason why the benefit of hearing should not be afforded to the accused after coming into force of the BNSS, even if complaint against him has been technically filed before coming into force of the BNSS on 01.07.2024."

Retrospective application of 223 BNSS

Sikander Singh v. ED, 2025 (P&H)


Our Question and draft answer:
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/5028

#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK
๐Ÿ‘5โค1
3 Member committee formed by speaker of lok sabha under section 3 of judges inquiry act 1968.

Following are the 3 members:
i) Supreme Court Judge Justice Aravind Kumar,
ii) Chief Justice of Madras High Court Justice Maninder Mohan Shrivastava and
iii) Senior Advocate of Karnataka High Court B V Acharaya. (of course distinguished jurist in speaker's opinion)


.
https://youtu.be/feugRUKlAok?feature=shared
โค3๐Ÿ‘1
๐Ÿ’ฏNo difference between compounding and punishment of offence in effect.


The compounding of an offence is no different from conviction on trial and the only difference is that the accused is given the benefit of compounding on admission of guilt. The severity of punishment is not the sole criteria to determine the effect of a crime on the society. The involvement of the petitioner in the activity associated with gambling certainly pertains to moral turpitude and the writ Court shall have no jurisdiction to direct the employer to take the person like the petitioner in employment who was involved in such an activity,"

@CurrentLegalGK
โค1