1.in indian easement act section 15 ders one sentence
which is..."Each of the said periods of twenty years shall be taken to be a period ending within two years next before the institution of the suit wherein the claim to which such period relates is contested."what is the meaning of this sentence??


2.and what if a person is enjoying light and air through a particular window for 17 years and then ther servient owner sells the property..can the dominant owner claim easemet after 20 years??
is it right against person or against property??

kindly provide caselaws if u hv ny...

The bank account of the accused or any of his relation to `PROPERty' within the meaning of section 102 of Criminal Procedure Code and POLICE officer in course of investigation can seize the operation of said account if such assets have direct link with the commission of offence for which the POLICE officer is investigating into; State of Maharashtra v Tapas D Neogy, 1999 (7) SCC 685: 1999 (5) Scale 613: 1999 (7) JT 92: 1999 (8) Supreme 149 

Under trial prisoners are not released on BAIL and remained in jail for 6 months Release of undertrial due to DELAY in trial is PROPER; RD Upadhayaya v State of Andhra Pradesh, 1999 (1) Scale 139 

The Court MUST have specific facts and satisfied that counter petitioner is sure to 
commit offences mentioned if he is not kept in custody; Gopalalnchari v State of Kerala, 1981 SCCr R 338 

It is as clear as day that before taking steps for ARREST the Magistrate MUST have REASONs to fear the Commission of breach of the peace and it MUST appear to him that such breach of peace cannot be prevented otherwise than by immediate ARREST of the alleged person It is INCUMBENT upon the Magistrate to record an order in writing showing satisfaction for the steps taken under the proviso to section 113 of the Criminal Procedure Code; Dibakar Naik v Puspalata Patel, (1997) 3 Crimes 107 (Ori) 

(1) Order under SECTION 144 IS amenable to writ jurisdiction on violation of any Fundamental RIGHT; Gulam Abbas v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 2198 : (1981) Cr LJ 1835 

(2) As far as possible CUSTOMARY RIGHT of a community should not be disturbed; Gulam Abbas v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 2198: (1981) Cr LJ 1835 


i) The determination of RIGHTs by the competent Court of the parties spoken of in SECTION 146 has not necessarily to be a final determination, it may be even tentative at the interim stage when the competent Court passes an order of interim injunction or appoints a receiver in respect of subject matter of dispute pending final decision in the suit; Dharampal v Smt Ramshri, 1993 (1) Crimes 304 (SC) 

(ii) Passing of order without PROPER enquiry is nullity; CKP Mennon v KP Sulaiman, 2000 Cr LJ 221 (Mad) 

(i) The Magistrate has no power to take COGNIZANCE of an offence on basis of private complaint that resulted in submission of the report under section 173 consequent upon reference under section 156 (3) when once he has accepted negative POLICE report and closed the proceedings; S D Soni v State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC) 

(ii) Rejection of prosecution case on ground of illegality or irregularity not PROPER; Leela Ram v State of Haryana, 1999 (8) JT 274: 1999 (8) Supreme 631 

(iii) Conclusion of Court can not be allowed to base solely on the probity of investigation; State of Karnataka v K Yarappa Reddy, 1994 (8) SCC 715: 1999 (6) Scale 330: 1999 (8) JT 10 

whether case u/s 379 of ipc can be compounded at present after amendment? 

  …law courts exist for the society and in the event  of  there  being a question posed in  the  matter  of interpretation of  a  beneficial   piece  of legislation, question  of  interpreting the same with a  narrow  pedantic approach  would  not  be justified.  (SECRETARY, H.S.E.B.Vs.SURESH & ORS ETC.  ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT:04/04/1999 ) 


      …It is to be seen that the procedure is the hand-maid for Justice; and unless the procedure touches upon jurisdictional issue, it should be moulded to subserve substantial justice. Therefore, technicalities would not stand in the way to subserve substantive justice. (AIR 1994 S C 1699 Ramankutty Guptan  v. Avara)

….The High Courts  exercise  control over Government functioning and ensure obedience of rules and law by  enforcing  PROPER, FAIR and just  performance  of  duty. Where the Government or any authority passes an order  which is  contrary  to  rules	 or  law  it  becomes  amenable	  to correction  by the courts in exercise of writ  jurisdiction.


.  It shakes the confidence and faith of the society in the system and is prone to encouraging even the honest and sincere to  deviate from their path.  It is the responsibility of the High Court as  custodian  of the Constitution to  maintain	 the  social balance by interfering where necessary for sake of  justice and  refusing  to interfere where it is against the  social interest and public good.
(STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 	Vs. PRABHU  1994 SCC  (2) 481  )

.. It is time that the derelicts are also held ACCOUNTABLE and liable for the loss of public money due to their lapses.
   
Governments being the largest litigants, radical improvement is needed in the functioning of their machinery by reducing frivolous litigation and ensuring PROPER conduct of the necessary litigation. Unless the desirable steps in this behalf are taken in the RIGHT earnest, any number of seminars and conferences to device means for reducing the backlog in Courts is an exercise in futility and the resolutions made therein, are empty slogans.
(AIR 1995 S C 2237 Union of India v. Rahul Rasgotra )

respected sir/madam,
                    i was working i a pvt. ltd. company from 25-03-2008 to 08-08-2009. on 08-08-2009 they terminated my services without any compensation, chargesheet,notice. while my overtime,bonus and other d.a.'s were pnding to the company and i already have sent them a notice on 21-07-2009. after that company get annoyed to me and terminate my services and also did not give me any termination letter. so i filed a case under sec. 2(a) i.d. act 1947. in concilation proceedings on the date for compromise they did not come, so the case from there sent to labour court bhatinda by indicating ex-party. during concilation the owner make a call to me and started threatening me and told me to take my case back otherwise he will file several false cases against me as he has a lot of money and power. against this i send a letter to s.s.p ferozepur and he marked the copy for further action to the police chowki of my village. but after this the constable got money from other pary and did not do take any action. after this i sent letter to d.g.p. chandigarh and c.m. of punjab but nothing happened and my owner regularly started to threaten me. after this on 13-12-2009 he came along with his partner and 3-4 men along with them to my house and tried to kidnap me and also slapped me and blew punches. my neighvbours came and they helped and saved me. now i am very afraid as police is also not helping me and the owner of company has allresady shot a employee dead ealrlier. what should i do now?

The Court cannot be blind to the fact that even after fifty years of our independence our territorial integrity is not fully secure. Administrative Liquidation was certainly not a course open to them.( People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India and Another*  	*(1997) 3 SCC 433) ) 

       That the petitioner was subjected to wholly unwarranted humiliation and indignity which cannot be done to any citizen of lndia irrespective of whether he was accused of minor offence or major offence… The duty to impose a restraint should not be utilised as an opportunity for exposing an under trial prisoner to public ridicule and humiliation. 
Life, liberty of a citizen guaranteed under Art. 21 include life with dignity and liberty with dignity. LIBERTY MUST mean freedom from humiliations and indignities at the hands of the authorities to whom the custody of a person may pass temporarily or otherwise under the law of the land    
(Ravikant Patil vs The State of Maharashtra & others  *1991 Cr.L.J. 2344 (Bombay))

On an allegation that the petitioners have been indulging in anti-social activities without mentioning the PERIOD during which those activities took place no person can reasonably put up a defence. If the activities had happened 10 years ago, he could easily persuade the authorities to the effect that there has been a lull in those activities on his part and no order of externment is called for. We are also of the opinion that the allegations of beating people, causing loss to the people’s PROPERties are somewhat vague. Such order of externmemt is illegal and liable to be set aside.  
(Prakash Sitaram Shelar, vs The State of Maharashtra & others*  1991 Cr.LJ. 1251 (Bombay))

NATURAL JUSTICE requires that the person affected should have notice of the relevant material on which the authority concerned bases its conclusion. (Sh. Rambhai alias Ramlo Khimchand . .vs The State of Gujarat & anothers* *1991 Cr.L.J. 3159 (Gujrat) )

       Even in the life of the criminal or habitual offender, time may come where he starts living a peaceful life. When according to POLICE reports, at a later stage the petitioner has confined his activity to his profession of goldsmith and the report further indicated that except that profession he did not take interest in any other activity. Therefore, the POLICE surveillance in the case of the petitioner has seriously encroached upon the privacy of the petitioner, and his fundamental RIGHT of the personal Iiberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and the freedom of the movement guaranteed by Article 19(1) (d). (Moti Sunar alias Moti Lal vs State of U.P.& others. . *1997 Cr.L.J; 2260 (Allahabad) ) 

    In both the situations, some inquiry is necessary to ascertain whether the report submitted by. the Station Officer required opening of History Sheet or not. It is not enough to put a BLANKET-SEAL on the report of the Station Officer. (Sunil Kumar Vs Superintendent of POLICE, Ballia and others * *1997 Cr.L.J. 3201 (Allahabad))

      Thus where discrimination was played by POLICE authorities in permitting the respondent-association to take its religious procession through a prominent centre in the town while restricting the petitioner-association from doing the same on the ground that it would lead to law and order problem; the said action of the POLICE authorities would be imPROPER. Both the associations are entitled-to take their processions through that prominent center and it - is the DUTY of the POLICE Authorities to tackle with the law and order problem (Gehohe-E-Miran Shah vs The Secretary, Home Department,.Govt. of A.P. and others *1993 Cr.L.J. 406 (AP.)) 

Section 29 and 30

I HAVE SOLD A MOTOR BIKE TO A PERSON WHOSE ADDRESS CANNOT BE TRACED. THE SALE WAS EXECUTED BY A SIMPLE SALE AGREEMENT ON A PEICE OF PAPER SIGNED BY THE SELLER AND PURCHASER IN PRESENCE OF 2 WITNESSES OF WHICH ONE OF THEM IS ONLY TRACEABLE. WHAT SHOULD THE OWNER THE VEHICLE DO TO SAVE HIMSELF FROM LEGAL PROBLEMS.

..
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.?