Comments on: SC Judgement - Slap on the face of DK http://kumar.indiainteracts.com/2008/07/22/sc-judgement-slap-on-the-face-of-dk/ Just another Indiainteracts.com weblog Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:00:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.0 by: sundarananth http://kumar.indiainteracts.com/2008/07/22/sc-judgement-slap-on-the-face-of-dk/#comment-8 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:50:37 +0000 http://kumar.indiainteracts.com/2008/07/22/sc-judgement-slap-on-the-face-of-dk/#comment-8 All along this case was known to be based on trumped up charges by JJ for extraneous considerations.The whole text of SC judgement on the bail application by HH can be seen in the website"kanchi-sathya.org" where it is fully produced.The hon'ble judges had rapped JJ and if she had any modicum of fairness she would have quit. The Mutt published an ad repudiating the scurrilous charges levied by one infamous author accusing HH of improper conduct.Till date she did not go to police as it was a command performance.It may not be out of place to mention the writer's husband deserted her after finding her to be amorous and promiscuous. The intention of JJ was to malign HH which she did and would pay a heavy price . All along this case was known to be based on trumped up charges by JJ for extraneous considerations.The whole text of SC judgement on the bail application by HH can be seen in the website”kanchi-sathya.org” where it is fully produced.The hon’ble judges had rapped JJ and if she had any modicum of fairness she would have quit.
The Mutt published an ad repudiating the scurrilous charges levied by one infamous author accusing HH of improper conduct.Till date she did not go to police as it was a command performance.It may not be out of place to mention the writer’s husband deserted her after finding her to be amorous and promiscuous.
The intention of JJ was to malign HH which she did and would pay a heavy price .

]]> by: kumar http://kumar.indiainteracts.com/2008/07/22/sc-judgement-slap-on-the-face-of-dk/#comment-7 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:34:23 +0000 http://kumar.indiainteracts.com/2008/07/22/sc-judgement-slap-on-the-face-of-dk/#comment-7 Read through this detailed judgement by the SC. It is marked judgement against the malacious propaganda of the DK thugs. ======================================================== It is for Puducherry to name prosecutor in Sankararaman case ======================================================== New Delhi: Once a criminal case is shifted from one State to another, it is the prerogative of the State where the case is transferred to appoint the public prosecutor to conduct the trial, the Supreme Court has held. A Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and M.K. Sharma directed the Puducherry government to appoint the public prosecutor to conduct the Sankararaman murder case, in which the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, is the key accused. Acting on his petition, the apex court in May 2006 stayed the trial. Allowing his appeal challenging the Madras High Court judgment upholding the appointment of public prosecutors by the Tamil Nadu government, the Bench said: “The power of the State Government to appoint a public prosecutor and an additional public prosecutor would extend only for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in the courts within the State. As per the procedure prescribed under Section 24 of Cr.PC., Tamil Nadu can appoint a public prosecutor to conduct criminal cases in any of the court in that State. Such powers cannot be exercised by the State government to conduct cases in any other State.” Writing the judgment, the Chief Justice said: “Once the case is transferred as per Section 406 of the Cr.PC. to another State, the transferor State no longer has control over the prosecution to be conducted in a court situated in a different State to which the case has been transferred. It is the prerogative of the State government to appoint a public prosecutor to conduct the case which is pending in the sessions division of that State.” The Bench, while directing the Puducherry government to appoint a public prosecutor, additional public prosecutor or special public prosecutor, asked the Tamil Nadu government to bear the expenses for conducting the trial. ======================================================== regards kumar Read through this detailed judgement by the SC. It is marked judgement against the malacious propaganda of the DK thugs.
========================================================
It is for Puducherry to name prosecutor in Sankararaman case
========================================================
New Delhi: Once a criminal case is shifted from one State to another, it is the prerogative of the State where the case is transferred to appoint the public prosecutor to conduct the trial, the Supreme Court has held.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and M.K. Sharma directed the Puducherry government to appoint the public prosecutor to conduct the Sankararaman murder case, in which the Kanchi Sankaracharya, Sri Jayendra Saraswathi, is the key accused.

Acting on his petition, the apex court in May 2006 stayed the trial.

Allowing his appeal challenging the Madras High Court judgment upholding the appointment of public prosecutors by the Tamil Nadu government, the Bench said: “The power of the State Government to appoint a public prosecutor and an additional public prosecutor would extend only for conducting any prosecution, appeal or other proceedings in the courts within the State. As per the procedure prescribed under Section 24 of Cr.PC., Tamil Nadu can appoint a public prosecutor to conduct criminal cases in any of the court in that State. Such powers cannot be exercised by the State government to conduct cases in any other State.”

Writing the judgment, the Chief Justice said: “Once the case is transferred as per Section 406 of the Cr.PC. to another State, the transferor State no longer has control over the prosecution to be conducted in a court situated in a different State to which the case has been transferred. It is the prerogative of the State government to appoint a public prosecutor to conduct the case which is pending in the sessions division of that State.”

The Bench, while directing the Puducherry government to appoint a public prosecutor, additional public prosecutor or special public prosecutor, asked the Tamil Nadu government to bear the expenses for conducting the trial.
========================================================

regards
kumar

]]>