In a case involving death, the accused — the victim’s husband and her in-laws — were acquitted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court on the ground of insufficient evidence, relying on books of medical jurisprudence to discard the doctor’s evidence on the nature of the death. The state of Madhya Pradesh appealed. Although it was dismissed on the same ground, the Supreme Court still held that while opinions of specialist authors may help, the same cannot prevail over the opinion of the expert’s evidence in a case (State of Madhya Pradesh vs Sanjay Rai).
A complaint was lodged alleging fraud and siphoning of amounts in connivance with certain officers in regard to the LC facility of a bank. The CBI probed into the matter pursuant to an FIR. In the meantime, a compromise was arrived at before the debt recovery tribunal and a decree passed to that effect. The accused contended in view of the compromise, the offences stood compounded and proceedings should be quashed. The Karnataka High Court held that arriving at a compromise does not automatically result in the compounding of the offence (Ramesh Babulal Baheti vs CBI).
The landlord filed an eviction petition against a lessee, and obtained a decree of eviction from part of the premises. The institute appealed. Meanwhile, the district magistrate (DM) of Nainital allotted the premises for residence-cum-office of the director general of police and possession was taken over by use of police force, an action challenged by the landlord. The high court passed an interim order directing the state either to vacate the premises or proceed under the Land Acquisition Act. The Supreme Court held the DM’s action as high-handed and declined to vacate the interim order passed by the high court (State of Uttaranchal vs Ajit Singh Bhola).
SOLON
