𝐋𝐄𝐆𝐀𝐋 𝐂𝐔𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐅𝐅𝐀𝐈𝐑𝐒 𝐁𝐘 𝐍𝐀𝐓𝐔𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐂𝐄

S.413 BNSS | Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal By Magistrate Lies Before Sessions Court : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s413-bnss-victims-appeal-against-acquittal-by-magistrate-lies-before-sessions-court-supreme-court-551787

'No Mens Rea', Act Appears Rash & Negligent: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail To Father Accused Of Applying Burning Wicks On 'Possessed' Daughter https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/gujarat-high-court/gujarat-high-court-bail-father-fir-burning-cotton-wicks-on-daughter-551859

🙂<-->🙃 WHEN SHALL MEANS MAY AND MAY MEANS SHALL? The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand (2024) the Court observed:

SUBSTANCE OVER FORM ALWAYS

"There is no doubt that the word "may" ordinarily does not mean "must". Ordinarily, "may" will not be construed as "shall". But this is not an inflexible rule. The use of the word "may" in certain legislations can be construed as "shall", and the word "shall" can be construed as "may". It all depends on the nature of the power conferred by the relevant provision of the statute and the effect of the exercise of the power. The legislative intent also plays a role in the interpretation of such provisions. Even the context in which the word "may" has been used is also relevant." Now in the present case, how is the following phrase read as shall? Unless the sample has already been tested or analysed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst's report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused, cause the sample of the drug or cosmetic produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory... WHY "MAY" IN S.25(4) READS AS "SHALL": SIX REASONS (i) S.25(3) creates a specific statutory right — the legislature expressly carved out an exception to conclusiveness; recognising a right to challenge the Government Analyst's report was a conscious legislative choice. (ii) S.25(4) is the mechanism to make that right effective — once S.25(3) is exercised, the sample goes to the Central Drugs Laboratory and its report becomes conclusive evidence; the provision is substantive, not merely procedural. (iii) Supreme Court treats this as a valuable statutory right — if the sample is not sent while still testable, the accused permanently loses independent analysis; delay attributable to the prosecution can be fatal to the prosecution. (iv) Treating "may" as purely discretionary defeats S.25(3) itself — the legislature cannot be taken to have created a right while simultaneously conferring unfettered discretion to refuse the mechanism for exercising it; that renders the protection in sub-section (3) largely illusory. (v) "May" must be read in context of the consequences of non-exercise — where S.25(3) is complied with and statutory conditions are satisfied, refusal to send the sample to CDL deprives the person of the very safeguard the legislature intended. (vi) Purposive construction, not mechanical substitution the principle is not that "may" invariably means "shall"; rather, in the specific statutory context of S.25(3) and (4), legislative intent, nature of the right, and consequences of non-exercise justify reading "may" as "shall" to give effect to the provision rather than render the right ineffective. #IOS@CurrentLegalGK

S 156(3) CrPC Order Is Pre-Cognizance Step, Sanction Under S 197 CrPC Not Required At That Stage: Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-1563-precognizance-step-sanction-section197-crpc-that-stage-551655

Completed Trial Cannot Be Remanded Merely For Procedural Lapse Without Proof Of Prejudice : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/completed-trial-cannot-be-remanded-merely-for-procedural-lapse-without-proof-of-prejudice-supreme-court-551753

S.413 BNSS | Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal By Magistrate Lies Before Sessions Court : Supreme Court https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s413-bnss-victims-appeal-against-acquittal-by-magistrate-lies-before-sessions-court-supreme-court-551787

Article 324(5) of the Constitution states that the CEC can be removed from office only “in like manner and on the like grounds as a Judge of the Supreme Court.” This framing can also be found in Section 11(2) of the 2023 Act. The article further states that “any other Election Commissioner or a Regional Commissioner shall not be removed from office except on the recommendation of the Chief Election Commissioner”.

Opposition seeks Gyanesh Kumar exit: How can a Chief Election Commissioner be removed? 🔗 #chief_election_commissioner #election_commission_of_india #express_explained

Magistrate Cannot Revert To Pre-Cognizance Stage And Invoke S.156(3) Cr.P.C. Once Inquiry Is Taken Up U/ S 202: Bombay High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/bombay-high-court/magistrate-cannot-revert-s1563-crpc-once-inquiry-s202-551536

Victim Can't Introduce Evidence At Trial Which Is Not Included In Chargesheet By Prosecution: Orissa High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/orissa-high-court/orissa-high-court-victim-introduce-evidence-trial-not-included-chargesheet-prosecution-551649

Supreme Court Lays Down Safeguards To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Child Custody Cases, Quashes False FIR Against Father https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-lays-down-safeguards-to-prevent-misuse-of-pocso-act-in-child-custody-cases-quashes-false-fir-against-father-551637

𝐍𝐎 𝐖𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐓𝐄𝐍 𝐆𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐃𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐋𝐋 𝐍𝐎 𝐁𝐀𝐈𝐋 𝐆𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐃. (MP HC)

𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐒𝐎𝐍𝐒

𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑎𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑓𝑜𝑟 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡. ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑏𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡, 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑏𝑦 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑚𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑑 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 ℎ𝑖𝑚. 𝑛𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝑜𝑛 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑠ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑔𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑝𝑠𝑒. ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟, 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑏𝑜𝑟𝑛𝑒 𝑜𝑢𝑡 𝑓𝑟𝑜𝑚 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑜𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑓𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑣𝑖𝑜𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 22(1) 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑡𝑢𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑎 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑤 𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑑𝑜𝑤𝑛 𝑏𝑦 𝑡ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑛'𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑚𝑖ℎ𝑖𝑟 𝑟𝑎𝑗𝑒𝑠ℎ 𝑠ℎ𝑎ℎ (𝑠𝑢𝑝𝑟𝑎). 𝑛𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑠𝑠, 𝑠𝑢𝑐ℎ 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡, 𝑏𝑦 𝑖𝑡𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓, 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑛 𝑏𝑎𝑖𝑙 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐𝑢𝑚𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑟. 𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐄𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐄𝐗𝐏𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐋𝐘 𝐁𝐔𝐓 𝐑𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐃 𝐁𝐘 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄 𝐖𝐇𝐈𝐂𝐇 𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐂𝐋𝐎𝐒𝐄𝐒𝐓 𝐋𝐀𝐖 𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐄 𝐀𝐓 𝐇𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑒𝑔ℎ𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑦𝑎 𝑣𝑠. 𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑎𝑔ℎ𝑢𝑣𝑎𝑛𝑠ℎ𝑖 @ 𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑖 @ 𝑏𝑖𝑡𝑡𝑢 𝑤ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑖𝑛 𝑖𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑏𝑒𝑒𝑛 ℎ𝑒𝑙𝑑 𝑎𝑠 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟: “11.... 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑖𝑠 𝑎 𝑓𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑑𝑖𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑏𝑒𝑡𝑤𝑒𝑒𝑛 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑓𝑢𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑑𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟. 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑟𝑠𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦 𝑚𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡, 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑑 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑔𝑜𝑟𝑦, 𝑜𝑛𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑠𝑒𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑗𝑢𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑜 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑑. 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒, 𝑖𝑡 𝑖𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑎𝑠 𝑖𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑤𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑑 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑟𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑡...." #BNSS@CurrentLegalGK

Arrest Grounds Not Given In Writing Violates Article 22(1), But Doesn't Automatically Entitle Accused To Bail: MP High Court https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/madhya-pradesh-high-court/arrest-grounds-not-communicated-article-221-violation-no-bail-551513

#Question@CurrentLegalGK #POCSO@CurrentLegalGK #Discernible_Topics@CurrentLegalGK What is the standard of proof is required for the accused to rebut the reverse presumption in section 29 POCSO. Read Twice.