𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄

⏳🚀1ST WEEKLY UPDATE:—

Say No To Regular Clutter And Yes To Organised info.

1. Testimony For Sexual Offence Within Home Does Not Require Same Corroboration As Crimes Committed In Open: Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/testimony-for-sexual-offence-within-home-does-not-require-same-corroboration-as-crimes-committed-in-open-supreme-court-552596

#Question@CurrentLegalGK When and how can accused get the copy of FIR, can he get it free of cost?

Whether IPC Prosecution Can Continue After Sanction Under PC Act Was Refused: Supreme Court Reserves Judgment https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-ipc-prosecution-continue-sanction-pc-act-refused-552564

Casteist slurs on social media can attract SC/ST Act: What Calcutta HC said on ‘public view’ 🔗 #explained_law #express_explained

O. 2 R. 2 CPC | Omitted Relief Remains Barred Despite Order 23 Liberty To File Fresh Suit : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/o-2-r-2-cpc-omitted-relief-remains-barred-despite-order-23-liberty-to-file-fresh-suit-supreme-court-552332 Looking for legal news and events. Download LiveLaw app, India's no:1 Legal news app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sinergialabs.livelaw

S. 53 Patents Act | Should Patent Term Be Counted From Date Of Grant If There Was Delay In Deciding Application? Supreme Court To Decide https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/s-53-patents-act-should-patent-term-be-counted-from-date-of-grant-if-there-was-delay-in-deciding-application-supreme-court-to-decide-552272 #Patent@CurrentLegalGK

📍🛵EXPLAINED | 166 MOTO VEHICLE JURISDICTION ISSUE: Whether a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) can exercise territorial jurisdiction over a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, merely because the insurance company has an office within its local limits, even when the accident occurred elsewhere and the claimant neither resides nor carries on business there. PROVISIONS INVOLVED 1. Section 166(1) & (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (options for filing a claim application). 2. Section 149(2) and Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (insurer’s rights and notice requirements). 3. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (contrast with CPC territorial jurisdiction). 4. Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (objection to jurisdiction at appellate / post-award stage). CONCLUSIONS 1. Under Section 166(2), a claimant has four options: (a) place where the claimant resides, (b) place where the accident occurred, (c) place where the claimant carries on business, or (d) place where the defendant resides. 2. The statute deliberately omits “place where the defendant carries on business.” 3. The word “defendant” in Section 166(2) does not include the insurer, because impleadment of the insurer is optional, not mandatory. 4. When an objection to territorial jurisdiction is raised before the Tribunal at the threshold (before adjudication on merits), the strict requirements of Section 166(2) must be satisfied. The “failure of justice” test under Section 21(1) CPC applies only at the appellate or post-award stage. APPRECIATION: In the present case, the claimant’s own pleadings showed residence in Chittoor, accident in Tirupati, and no business connection with Chennai. No part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of MACT Chennai. REASONING ✓Beneficial interpretation cannot override clear statutory language. ✓Extending jurisdiction merely because an insurer has a branch office would rewrite the statute. #Motor@CurrentLegalGK

Reliance was placed on Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ameena Begum v. State of Telangana to contend that a mere possibility of the detenue becoming involved in crime again, without cogent material supporting such an apprehension, cannot furnish a valid basis for preventive detention

Supreme Court Quashes NSA Detention Of Sambhal Violence Accused, Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On UP Govt https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/suprem-court-quashes-nsa-detention-of-sambhal-violence-accused-imposes-rs-10-lakh-cost-on-up-govt-552197 #NSA@CurrentLegalGK

#Translation@CurrentLegalGK Translate this into English

Right Of Accused: Accessing FIRs At Earliest Stage https://www.livelaw.in/articles/accused-right-accessing-firs-earliest-stage-551816 Looking for legal news and events. Download LiveLaw app, India's no:1 Legal news app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sinergialabs.livelaw

Right Of Accused: Accessing FIRs At Earliest Stage https://www-livelaw-in-nliu.knimbus.com/articles/accused-right-accessing-firs-earliest-stage-551816

🚗💀ALISTER ANTHONY PAREIRA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2012 SC ✓FACTS On 12 November 2006 (3:45–4:00 a.m.) the appellant drove car MH-01-R-580 on Carter Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai, at high speed while under influence of alcohol (0.112% w/v ethyl alcohol in blood; liquor bottle recovered). He rammed the vehicle onto the pavement where labourers were asleep in temporary huts, killing 7 and causing injuries (including grievous hurt) to 8. Appellant was a resident of the area and knew people slept there. Long curved brake marks (~70 ft) were found. No pre-accident mechanical defect existed (steering, brakes, gears operative). Appellant admitted driving and the accident but claimed mechanical failure. Trial Court convicted under ss. 304A & 337 IPC. High Court convicted under ss. 304 Part II, 338 & 337 IPC. 👨‍⚖️ LAW OF RASH, NEGLIGENCE AND KNOWLEDGE

Para 37-43, 50, 57, 70-71

1. The applicability of Section 304A IPC is limited to rash or negligent acts which B cause death but fall short of culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. Like Section 304A, Sections 279, 336, 337 and 338D IPC are attracted for only the negligent or rash act. 3. The sections are for the inherent danger of the acts specified therein irrespective of knowledge or intention to produce the result and irrespective of the result. 4. The question is whether indictment of an accused under Section 304 Part II and Section 338 IPC can co-exist in a case of single rasu or negligent act. We think it can. We do not think that two charges are mutually destructive. If the act is done with the knowledge of the dangerous consequences which are likely to follow and if death is caused then not only that the punishment is for the act but also for the resulting homicide and a case may fall within Section 299 or Section 300 depending upon the mental state of the accused viz. 5. A person, responsible for a reckless or rash or negligent act that causes death which he had knowledge as a reasonable man that such act was dangerous enough to lead to some untoward thing and the death was likely to be caused, may be attributed with the knowledge of the consequence and may be fastened with culpability of homicide not amounting to murder and punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. #BNS@CurrentLegalGK

Know The Law | When Can An Issue Be Tried First Under Order XIV Rule 2 CPC As Preliminary Issue? https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/when-can-an-issue-be-tried-first-under-orderxiv-rule2-cpc-551862

Know The Law | Where Can A Motor Accident Claim Be Filed? Supreme Court Explains https://www.livelaw.in/know-the-law/supreme-court-where-can-motor-accident-claim-be-filed-551861

Know The Law | Consequences Of Not Furnishing Written Grounds Of Arrest : Supreme Court Explains https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/know-the-law-consequences-of-not-furnishing-written-grounds-of-arrest-supreme-court-explains-551870