This was a PIL filed in the HC of Kerala challenging the permission granted by the government authorities to hold public meetings on the margins of public road in Aluva, a town in Kerala.The petitioner wanted to avoid further occurence of such happenings, creating difficulty for the ordinary use of road. The HC in its judgement held that the benefits of its judgement should extend to the whole state of Kerala and prohibited meetings on margins of the roads

My son is going to collge by own vehicle about 55 km away from home. college authorities asking for bus fee which is compulsory for local student. other wise they are asking to commute by public transport. Railway time table is not suitable to reach college and lots of time is wasted. public bus transport system is crowdy which spoils his uniform, and since child hood he has proble travling in a bus. Is the collge authority asking for bus fee even my son is not usisng it.
Thanking you 

Are there anti-trafficking courts in Mumbai, as per the Trafficking in Persons (TIPS) Report 2009? If there are, have these been effective in expediting the cases under ITPA 1956 that come before it? Are the judges and prosecutors adequately trained and sensitized? How did these courts come about? Was it a result of a public interest litigation initiated by a NGO? 

an advocate has filed his vakalatnama in a matter of 138 N. I. Act. (I'm not sure weather he has filed on behalf of adv. firm or as individual)in the said matter accused exampted for further order and some other advocate (may be a junior) is appeared and contest on behalf of Accused. the said advocate has filed one misc. application during the trial. i want to oppose the same that the said advocate is not on record hence the application is not maintainable.

PLEASE ARRANGE TO LOAD THIS LEADING JUDGMENT ON THE WEBSITE SINCE THIS JUDGMENT BEING AGAINST JUDICIARY,IN NATURE, IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE OF RAJ HIGH COURT. EVEN THE NAME OF HONB'LE JUDGE PRONOUNCING THE JUGMENT IS NOT AVAILABLE ON THE WEB.

FUNCTIONAL STYLE OF POLICE FORCES IN INDIA
The Law and it’s purview is very clear i.e. The Cr P C does not authorise to send a complaint involving cognizable offence for departmental enquiry. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT has held & ratified the same principle in Sartaj S/o Mohd. Husain and Anr. v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and Ors. (Decided on 14.07.2010), “The law as well settled states that in case the authorities want to do certain things, then that should be done in the manner provided in the Act or statutory provisions and not otherwise.”
The statute law can’t be overridden or superseded by any administrative instructions, manuals, circulars or notifications whatsoever that may be. CBI,CVC or anybody else has no authority to override over and above what has been decided by Central legislature.  
Section 154 of Cr P C, 1973
154. Information in cognizable cases - 
(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf . 

156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases 

(1)	Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable CASE which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. 

          The various court verdicts speak on the matter, “the police has no opinion but to REGISTER it and thereafter start investigation. (Munna Lal vs State of Himachal Pradesh others.   *1992 Cr.L.J. 1558 (H.P.) ) 
        If it is left to be determined by the Police to decide in which cases of disclosure or commission of cognizable offence it would first hold preliminary enquiry and then decide to register or not to register the case; it would also lead to delay in registration of the crime and in the meantime the material evidence may not be available. The conduct, of enquiry itself may entail a long period and in the meantime the material evidence may not be available. There may be then challenge to the said enquiry. But where such offence was, prima facie, disclosed, he had no option to embark on full fledged enquiry to ascertain the genuineness or reliability of such information and allegations and draw his conclusions and render the investigation redundant and to refuse registration of FIR. He would be breaching the mandate of Section 154(1), thereby. (130 (2006) DLT 490: Laxminarayan Gupta vs Commissioner Of Police And Ors) 
The conferment of absolute and uncanalised discretion to the Police to register a cognizable offence or not, would be VIOLATIVE OF EQUALITY clause enshrined in our Constitution. The Code vests power in Judiciary to control the discretion of the Police. .. he has power not to proceed with the investigation but that is subject to check by judiciary . To give power to the police not to register the crime in a cognizable case and instead proceed with an enquiry and later refuse registration would have the effect of the matter never coming to gaze of judicial scrutiny. This is not contemplated by the Code. it is necessary to .. control of police by judiciary which would be negated if it is left to the Police to decide in which case to register the crime on disclosure of commission of cognizable offence and in which defer it pending enquiry.  . (Kuldip Singh vs State 1994 CrLJ.2502 (Delhi))
    ..   such deviation must be visited with prompt punishment since POLICEMEN MAY NOT BE A LAW UNTO THEMSELVES expecting others to obey the law. (A. Nallassivan vs State of Tamil Nadu & others. 1995 Cr.L.J. 2754 (Madras))”
 
All the above miserable state of affairs reveals that police forces of the country have no virtual law/rules to be followed. it proceeds in the matters arbitrarily according to it’s whims or capriciousness shelving the law of land. 

In contrast to the unambiguous law requested above, Police adopts dualistic standards according to it’s own accord. Though the law has casted a drastic duty to register an FIR in each and every case without any exception where commission of a cognizable offence has been disclosed but CBI/ACB/Police abstain to register FIR under the guise of decision DATED 09/03/1970 of Supreme Court in P.   SIRAJUDDIN ETC. Vs. STATE OF MADRAS ETC. (1971 AIR 520). The said judgment was further considered by the Court in (1984 AIR 718, 1984 SCR (2) 914 )A. R. ANTULAY Vs. RAMDAS SRINIWAS NAYAK  and it has been held , “If information given to an officer in charge of a Police Station disclosed a non− cognizable offence, he has to enter the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf and to refer the informant to the Magistrate.” Interestingly the case cited above also involved the like issue of corruption.
The following are the pertinent issues cropping in the matter for consideration:-
1.	The practice of holding preliminary enquiry has not been appreciated at all by the Supreme Court and inter alia observed in P.   SIRAJUDDIN ETC. Vs. STATE OF MADRAS ETC. (1971 AIR 520) “the steps taken  in  the preliminary  enquiry  were   grossly irregular  and unfair,” 
2.	“Where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden”.(AIR 1986 S C 2160 A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab )
3.	The decisions of Court can’t replace any statutory provision unless the validity of the same is not challenged in due course. Our legislature has never intended to delegate such uncanalised powers to police to hold preliminary inquiry before registering FIR otherwise it would have inserted such clauses in the subsequent Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enacted after the decision in P. Sirajudin on 09/03/1970. Moreover the decision has been pronounced under old PC Act which has no relevancy to present PC Act, 1988.
4.	No innocent persons can be prejudice if the proceedings are conducted in a fair, just and impartial manner. “Investigation or inquiry envisaged in the Act are synonymous and interchangeable.” (AIR 1993 SC 1407 Krishna Swami vs Union Of India)Therefore holding of enquiry is not different from investigation in any manner.
5.	The provisions to arrest and detention are set out in law and more specifically clarified by Supreme Court in D. K. Basu’s case as well as Joginder Kumar Vs State of U. P. The police have   no authority to effect arrest or detain beyond law. Arrest or detention, if any, effected contrary to law entitles a detenue  or arrestee for compensation and punishment as per rules to police personnel for infraction of law.
6.	The false and unsubstantial complaints may be dealt with suitably by invoking sections 182,211 etc of IPC. Apprehension of coercion, harassment and humiliation of accused is unfounded and can’t be valid ground for exercising different standards for citizens. This infringes the right of equality before law guaranteed under Article 14. Inequality, whether of status, facility or opportunity, is to end, privilege is to cease and exploitation is to go. (AKHIL BHARATIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH (RAILWAY) REPRESENTED Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS... 1981 AIR 298) 
7.	The powers & functions to be discharged by police are defined in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 & Police Rules/Regulations/Act. No such powers to hold preliminary inquiry can be inferred in the absence of explicit statutory provisions. “it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter..( SC:Appeal (crl.) 1685 of 2007: Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P.) Holding of preliminary inquiry without authority of law infracts the rights of society. 
8.	If no FIR is lodged in a fit case it also looses judicial control over the matter. It may also lend a helping hand/opportunity to accused to manage/influence /threat complainants/witnesses and temper with documents. 
9.	This situation may endow Police forces (general or Special) with freehand to bargain with accused, a lucrative medium of blackmail & extraction and dismiss a genuine case in a cursory manner. Thus the ultimate control over crimes remains with government via police rather than judiciary. And government succeeds to blackmail and use such powerful criminals according to it’s whim.
10.	The holding of preliminary inquiry even can’t make the system foolproof. Still possibilities can’t be ruled out where complaints have been misconceived or built up by conspiracy of complainants with police. Prosecution in even many trap cases have failed and the information has been found baseless or conspiracy in nutshell. 
11.	The law has been designed to speed up the proceedings and punish the culprits quickly. Therefore the need for expeditious trial can’t be overemphasised. But keeping a case pending for registration for an indefinite period under the costume of conduct of preliminary inquiry without bringing it to home and keeping outside the administrative and judicial control amounts to spiritual violation of basic scheme of criminal justice.

what is the law on burden of proof as per section 106 evidece act.

party is not filling the limitation application then he take the profit of sec 5

Next Listing Date CASE NO SPLA 393/2010
LUCKNOW BENCH ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT.

 Dear Indian Kanoon

  Kindly find & publish the above Madras High Court judgments.