Landmark Judgments under POCSO Act (manupatra)

#POCSO@CurrentLegalGK

💼 Government Department in MP

These are the departments in Madhya Pradesh and we all know in M.P. there is no JLO exam therefore visit there wesbite and see if any law officer vacancy is present or not.

#Vacancy@CurrentLegalGK

😱 Don't save money for your marriage 😮

SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY v. UNION OF INDIA 2023

Right to Marriage not a Fundamental Right

#COI@CurrentLegalGK

'Vehicle For Vengeance' : Supreme Court Quashes Case Lodged By Woman Accusing Her Colleague Of Rape On False Marriage Promise
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/vehicle-for-vengeance-supreme-court-quashes-case-lodged-by-woman-accusing-her-colleague-of-rape-on-false-marriage-promise-305685

Invoking the principle laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), the Court reiterated that criminal proceedings can be quashed if instituted with mala fides or an ulterior motive. It also cited Mohd. Wajid v. State of U.P. (2023), emphasising that in cases of potentially vexatious prosecution, courts must look beyond the FIR and examine the surrounding circumstances.

Mere Social Media Post Supporting Pakistan Won't Attract Offence Of 'Endangering Sovereignty Of India' Under BNS: Allahabad High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/allahabad-high-court/allahabad-high-court-social-media-post-promoting-enmity-bns-endangering-sovereignty-pakistan-zindabad-305707

🤔 Can you answer this❓

Asked 2 years ago now converted into a P.I.L.

https://t.me/LegalQuizzes/580898

😎🔥 Results are out

🏹🕉️ Happy Dusshera Everyone.

Truth will always triumph if karma is towards truth.

🎉 Highest Rankers

Saksham, priya, jay kumar, choti, har har mahadev, renu chaudhary, priyanka, dharm dev, prakriti malik.

Congratulations All, sorry if I missed any name.

Priya @saksham551 @Achiverwithdifference @P82228 Har har mahadev @Ms_mystical @ppriyankaa Choti @Rosesunf @JksSinghalJks Parkriti @Honeymahor @PastleDreamS @dydv2 @saksham551 @hritika_sharma @ApplesandApples @mohitas1 Devanshi @karakot4a @Sachijaa
G Abhishek Pandey Sushmita @Shakibaliikhan


Many of you including me might be lazy 🦥 and in comfort zone but I feel you have gained some improvement after this challenge.

Next challenge:
90 Day from 3rd October.

What to do?

Wake up at 6 AM
Share your targets
Sleep at 11 PM
Share what you have learnt.

What's new?

At 11 PM share a voice note OR share a brief of what you have studied and not only the subjects.

Eg. I wake up at 5:50 then I send a message with targets in brief -
1. CPC order 9
2. BNSS- FIR
3. ICA- Judgments brief.
4. 10 judgments brief from Yearly digest of last year.
5. Answer writing of Evidence Act.

Done with 4 out of 5. (perfection comes with practice 😉)

At 11 PM before going to bed 🛏️

Completed 4 out of 5.

learnt something new you can revise your day with voice note as well.

1. New landmark judgment title and held.
2. Learnt that in answer writing this is how flow is made by connecting sentences.
3. New BNSS judgemnt on FIR (new law laid down)

Good Night 🌉

Many of your were struggling from revision and this new addition will help you however it will take 5 more minutes but will add 50 more marks in your exam.

Remember that law is not a game of information but approach.

#Enjoy_Learning@CurrentLegalGK

Are Judgments Of A High Court Applicable Throughout India?
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/judgments-high-court-applicable-throughout-india-305715

#Discernible_Topics@CurrentLegalGK

Delhi HC: It is well settled that a court would not determine a constitutional question in vacuum - Legal Desire Media and Insights
https://legaldesire.com/delhi-hc-it-is-well-settled-that-a-court-would-not-determine-a-constitutional-question-in-vacuum/

Remember the challenge starts tomorrow.

Pinned message of this group—
https://t.me/NinetyDaysPledge

read with
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6901

Masalti v. State of UP 1964 mob lynching 2 or 3 witnesses required.

Exception to the rule of Quality of witness over quantity of witnesses.

MASALTI v. State of U.P. 1964

Mr. Sawhney also urged that the test applied by the High Court in convicting the appellants is mechanical. He argues that under the Indian Evidence Act, trustworthy evidence given by a single witness would be enough to convict an accused person, whereas evidence given by half a dozen witnesses which is not trustworthy would not be
enough to sustain the conviction. That, no doubt is true; but where a criminal court has to deal with evidence pertaining to the commission of an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual
to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable. Therefore, we do not think that any grievance can be made by the appellants against the adoption of this test. If at all the  prosecution may be entitled to say thltt the seven accused persons were acquitted because their cases did not satisfy the mechanical test of four witnesses, and if the said test had not been applied; they might as well have been convicted. It is, no doubt, the quality of the evidence that matters and not the number of. witnesses who give such evidence. But, sometimes it is useful to adopt a test like the one which the High Court has adopted in dealing with the present case.

For 302 read with 149 mob crimes as used to dealt in IPC, this principle of 2 or 3 witnesses was applicable, the question is whether principle will remain applicable in mob lynching offence under section 103 of BNS?

Answer for this question will come when we read the distinction between 149/ 302 IPC and 103(2) of BNS becaus ein one various essentials of 149 has to be fulfilled but not in another.


#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

Delhi High court judgement on CLAT PG requirement for jobs in PSUs.

In view of the reasons given and discussions made above, we are fully convinced that the impugned „recruitment criteria‟ where selection for appointment to the post in question is to be made on the basis of merit in CLAT (PG) score – 2022 onwards, is legally not tenable being hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

🔪🔎 Purpose of Section 27 IEA/ proviso to section 23 BSA

🔮 Myth busted- To lift ban on 25/26 IEA

The essential purpose of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not to render admissible a “confession” in the “disclosure statement” made by an accused to a Police Officer.

👨‍⚖️ Case- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947

If in a “disclosure statement” there is a “confession" such a “confession” is inadmissible

💯 Result- If the inculpatory part of the “disclosure statement” is so excluded, then what remains is a mere statement to P.O.

👉 Consequence of Statement-
Will not hit the Ban Under section 162(1) Cr.P.C because of 162(2).

🤔 What is “whether it amounts to a confession or not”

If confession is excluded then why this language ☝️

✅ Answer- Pulukuri Kottaya v. Emperor AIR 1947

1. Disclosure statement does not constitute gist of offence only a corroborative piece of evidence other need to be proved.

2. BUT if possession” or “concealment” of the incriminating object itself constitutes the gist of the offence disclosure statement” would be admissible notwithstanding the fact that statement amounts to a “confession”

📒 Laws in which when Section 27 Statement amounts to Confession

1. Opium Act, 1978,
2. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940,
3. Explosives Act, 1884,
4. Explosive Substances Act, 1908,
5. Public Gambling Act, 1867,
6. Gold Control Act, 1968, 7. Narcotic Drugs Act and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

🎬 Illustration—

Larance says; I have killed Soloman with a Gun and the Gun is placed in the farm house.

1. Confession- Bold Highlighted part
2. Statement of S. 27- Underline.
3. Statement Amounts to confession for S. 25 Arms Act, 1959

👩‍⚖️Conclusion- Majority of Cases statement does not Amounts to confession but only when concealement and possesion of object itself consitutues offence then amounts to confession.

#BSA@CurrentLegalGK

👩‍🏭🤫 Section 27 Contract act

https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6330
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6409
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/4743
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/2458

Non-Compete Clause Can't Curtail Right Of Employee To Get Employment After Notice Period: Delhi High Court
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/non-compete-clause-cant-curtail-right-of-employee-to-get-employment-after-notice-period-delhi-high-court-295802

AI In Policing: Framing Issue Of Regulation
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/ai-policing-framing-issue-regulation-305808

Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025:Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/supreme-court-judgment-half-yearly-digest-2025-pocso-act-305837