..
1.	An entry shall be required to be made in the diary as to who was informed of the ARREST. These protections from power MUST be held to flow from Articles 21 and 22 (1) and enforced strictly.   

  
It shall be the duty of the Magistrate, before whom the ARRESTed person is produced, to satisfy himself that these requirements have been complied with.	.

( Joginder Kumar vs State of U.P. and Others *1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 / (1994) 4SCC 260 AIR 1994 SC 1349  )
                  .. every third day, the detainee should be medically examined and such medical reports should be 	entered in the Station House Diary;
.. The Officer in charge of the concerned POLICE Station should provide paper and pen to the detainee if so demanded for writing complaint and the Officer in charge of the concerned POLICE Station should open the complaint is found in the complaint box, the officer in charge of the POLICE Station should' produce such complaining detainee to the Magistrate immediately along with his complaint and the concerned Magistrate would pass appropriate orders in the light of the complaint made for medical examination, treatment, aid or assistance, as the 	case may warrant;

(vii)	no female person shall be detained or Arrested without the PRESENCE of lady constable and in no case, after sun-set and before sun-rise;   
(Christian Community Welfare Council of India and another vs 
Government of Maharastra & another* 1995 Cr.L.J. 4223 Bombay)) 

          The Supreme Court on handcuffing of prisoners issued the following 	directions: 
We declare, direct and lay down as a rule that handcuffs or other fetters shall not be forced on a prisoner - convicted or undertrial - while lodged in a jail anywhere in the country or while transporting or in transit from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back. The POLICE and the jail authorities, on their own shall have NO AUTHORITY to direct the handcuffing of any inmate of a jail in the country or during transport from one jail to another or from jail to Court and back… Any violation of any of the directions issued by us by any rank of POLICE in the country or member of the jail establishment shall be summarily punishable under the CONTEMPT of Courts Act apart from other penal consequences under law. 
(In re: M.P. Dwivedi and others* *1996 Cr.L.J. 1670  )                            
…The Arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout the interrogation…. render him liable to be punished for CONTEMPT of court and the proceedings for CONTEMPT of court may be instituted in any, High Court of the country, having territorial jurisdiction over the matter. "The courts have the obligation to satisfy the 
social aspirations of the citizens because the courts and the law are for the people and expected to respond to their aspirations.  A court of law cannot 
close its consciousness and aliveness to stark realities.  Mere punishment of the offender cannot give much solace to the family of the victim	civil action for damages is a long drawn and a cumbersome judicial process. Monetary compensation for redressal by the court finding the infringement of the indefeasible right to life of the citizen is, therefore, useful and at time perhaps the only effective remedy to apply balm to the wounds of the family members of the deceased victim, who may have been the breadwinner of the family.
 (D.K. Basu vs State of W.B.*  *(1997) 1 SCC 426)

In in a case police after registring crime due some political influance or other wise stops investigation, and keeps the case in cold storage with out arresting the accused. 
  
What is the option left to the defacto complainant? 

    Can he file a Petition u/s 159 Cr.P.C., seeking a direction to police to investigate the case and to arrest the accused, and to call for the progress of investigation in the case.?   

I HAVE APPLIED THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL TO ANOTHER PSU.MY PSU HAVE FORWARDED MY APPLICATION AND ISSUED NOC ON BEING SELECTED AFTER WRITEN EXAM AND INTERVIEW. THE NEW PSU ISSUED OFFER LETTER DATED 28/12/2006 TO ALL THE SELECTED CANDIDATES. I GOT THE LETTER AND SUBMITTED MY RESIGNATION ON 03/01/2007 AND SAME HAS UNDERGONE THE PROCEDURES OF RESIGNATION AND THE PSU RELEIVED ON 12/01/2007. AFTER USING THE JOINING TIME PERMITTED UNDER TRANSFER RULES- 6 DAYS -JOINED ON 18/01/2007. 

THE NEW PSU HAVE SHIFTED MY INCREMENT AND ALSO HAVE NOT GIVEN ME FITMENT BENEFIT CITING THAT I HAVE REPORTED ON 18.01.2007 AND AS PER RULES ONLY CANDIDATES AS ON 31.12.2006 WILL BE ELEGIBLE FOR FITMENT BENEFIT.

I HAVE QUOTED THE RULE -FRSR AND CCS PENSION WHICH STATES THAT MY SERVICE IS CONTINOUES AS I HAVE APPLIED THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL.

I HAVE ALSO QUOTED Fundamental Rights-Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment  ALSO stating that procedure delay of the PSU cannot be penalising me for not making me eligible to join the new psu. as i had to submit the proper relieving letter form earlier psu as per rules-and conditons of offer and it takes time.

kinldy help me in this regard

in the light of 

Article 418 (b) [Now Rule 26(2) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,     
     1972] elaborates the Word “resignation “and lays down that It will not be
      taken as resignation of Public service. It runs as follows:
(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or parts, is not a resignation of public service”


V.K. RAMA RAO AND ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURALDEVELOPMENT THROUGH DATE OF JUDGMENT 14/12/1989 the Honorable Supreme Court 


Ved Prakash Chaddha vs Union Of India, Through         Secretary, Ministry Of Defence (Finance), New Delhi on 15/5/1999 JUDGMENT Onkareshwar Bhatt, 

KINLDY HELP ME

Dear Sir,

I dug a bore well in my patta land. My borewell is located at 40 meters from Road Paromboke land. Some of the people in the village would like to dug a borewell for the supply of water for public at 40 meters distance from my borewell. Though they found other borewell points, intentionally, they would like to dug borewll at 40 meters distance of my borewell. They already have a good borewell which spplies sufficient water to the villagers. It is a voilation under Walta Act. WALTA act will prevent me to put another borewell in my own land within 250 meters. As per the Andhra pradesh WALTA act, distance between two borewells is 250 meters. will it holds good even if anyboy try to dig a borewell for the public purpose or there any expemtions for public borewells. Please provide legal help 

kindly provide supreme court and gujrat high court judgements primarily, which infer that -- 

"A marriage which is already annulled by any competent court, cannot be decreed with a 'divorce'...."

awaiting
legal.help

an officer was punished for the deliquency of negligence for no fault of him.

dear brothers

I request you to kindly provide me with information about Judgments, Honorable High Court or Honorable Supereme Court, wherein a Case was dismissed because the Evidence of the Complainant was not taken on Oath for over the time period prescribed for Punishment for a certain crime

For instance where cognizance has been taken on a offence for defamation and where the punishment if convicted is 2 years, and if the Complainant fails to give his evidence on oath for more time than the period of 2 years which is the period of punishment for the accused to be undergone if convicted.

please provide me with information wherein any criminal case (minor Offences) has been dismissed by any Honorable court for the above reason would be of great help.

Regards
fdf2007in

P & H HC or Hon. Supreme Court which support -
Punjab agricultural produce marketing act 1961
Punjab agricultural produce marketing Rules 1962 

whether police can investigate and call person if any complaint of non cognizable offence is received by the police authority. as per section 155(2) of Cr PC which reads as under 
" no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of a Magistate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial"

Can any body cite any judgement to the effect that the standard of proof required in an arbitral proceeding need not be the same as in a Court ?