in a case u/s 279 337 338 ipc learned cjm interfere first with investigation execercising power u/s 167(5)cr.p.c and stop the investigation as it could not be completed within six months as required thereunder for summons cases'investigation. but after a lapse of certain time police submits chargesheet inspite of order of learned cjm'order u/s 167(5). interestingly succeeding cjm without taking notice of earlier order takes cognizance of the case on the basis of chargsheet so filed as discussed above. accused prefers a revision being aggrieved n dissatisfied by the cognizance orer of learned court of cjm and revisional court set asides the impugned order of cognizance but without any direction to lower court wherebefore the case is running. is the order of revisional court empowers lower court to pass an order in the case having effect of disposing of the case in effect of order of revisional court. if not, then in what sense order of revisional court is to be understood by the lower court. [cjm has been mentioned because this case relates to state of bihar where only cjm has cognizance power.]

It is really a GREAT site for the lawyer, advocates, Judges and all who really searches for great topics and thought provoking judgement. I wish its all success.

Pradip Banerjee.

if session court has sent the case to cjm u/s.228 crpc that offence is not triable by court of session. then can session court order after remanding the case to cjm for committal as offence shown are triable while hearing of appeal?

what is the opinion of lawyers in this regard and on what points its a good or worse.
  as per me its a good law for country like india where population is hiking by leaps and bounds and the country is having 1/3 land of china and we r 2ND in populatin after china. if law of adverse possession is not there then those who have money they will purchase land and will not use it and no one can use it except him so the acual needy people can not use it.thus the story will repeat of rajasahi period.
earlier kings or raja were original land owners and they give it to cultivate to others and even they cannot give it to others and after independence there was scarcity of food grains after survey of food minister it found that land belongs to kings were not cultivated and then each state passed law for getting back land from the kings and such land were allotted to the backward class and the needy people.
if there is a law for adverse possession the purchaser of land will be those want for their own use it.
can discuss more on it 

ICICI BANK CANNOT FILE THE SUIT AGAINST YOU UNDER ORDER 37 IT HAS TO FILE SUITAT  DRT IE IT HAS TO FILE THE SUIT UNDER DRT ACT BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT NAD NOT UNDER  SUBJ CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. THE ICICI MANAGER WHO HAS THE SIGNATURE MAY BE SUBJECTED TO NARCOANALYSIS UNDER SECTION 45  OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT

while we are left and talking about abuse of child labour.and making big ads and spending lots of money in urban areas for removal of that child labour ..here in villeges where presentlytobacco crop processing is going on in prakasam and guntur districts,the child labour is bing used without any fear..if it is urban areas there is a reason that they are misusing the children for want of checking the same..but in villeges it can be very easily identified who has been used and by whome
in spite of this fecility no action has been taken for reformations
i could guess and compare and conclude that urban is far better in taking actions and penalising the misuserscompare to rural,,it is a serious matter to be noted and taken care of by the villege authorities
it is high time to fix the responsibility on the villege authorities for action and introduce sanctions on them if they do not act on it
also this responsibility be offered to NGO organisation if any working in the villeges-who can identify ,prove with proper documental evidents  and submit to the concerned authoriries notice with a copy to secretariat for future actions on authorities with sanctions  

The supreme court of India through its judgment namely Adalat Prasad has virtually eliminated statutory provision of discharge as it was available under section 227 and 239.
I would like to invite other victims of dismissal of their discharge applications and seek their views to find out the solution.

It is need of the hour that government should regulate than virtually to outlaw organ transplant.4.5 lakh patient require organ transplant every year but only 35,000 organ transplants in the past 10 years.on average 3,000 people die every year because they are unable to get a timely transplant. data is given on 28th jan 2008,in "The Times Of India" news paper.Important thing which i want to emphasis is at present 0.1%of all donations are from cadavers while 1.6lakh people die in road accident every year. Lack of government scheme or any programme to make people aware that organ of accidental bodies can be used for transplant and not an offence is wasting so many precious life every year.First of all doctor should be educated and proper organ storage bank should be available in every district as it require very scientific standard to store dead organ. till now hardly any organization, hospital or doctors providing or keeping these services in hospital. Indian government should adopt very strong steps.