Srinivasa Law chamber , Rajahmundry

11/04/2023

11/04/2023

10/04/2023

06/04/2023

🥹🥹

06/04/2023

😏

10/02/2022

HELICOPTER MONEY-?
Helicopter money is the term used for a large sum of new money that is printed and distributed among the public, to stimulate the economy during a recession or when interest rates fall to zero. It is also referred to as a helicopter drop, in reference to a helicopter scattering supplies from the sky.
A helicopter drop refers to a term first coined by Milton Friedman as a rhetorical device intended to abstract away the effects of any monetary policy transmission mechanisms in a thought experiment regarding the addition of cash to the bank accounts of all citizens—as if dropped from a helicopter overnight.1
Examples of helicopter money
If a country faces slow or no growth, it could consider a helicopter drop. For example, in 2016, Japan considered using helicopter money to assist with the country’s slowing growth.
Financial markets showed concerned with the decision, as participants feared hyperinflation and currency devaluation. So, the Bank of Japan (BoJ) opted for an alternative method to increase monetary supply. This included different partnerships and purchases such as government bonds, infrastructure outlays and payments to lower-income earners.
In recent decades this term has come to refer to a figurative application of Friedman's metaphor, as a type of monetary stimulus strategy that increases the quantity of the money supply and directly distributes cash to the public in order to spur inflation—or rising prices—and economic growth. Helicopter drop policies have become a common feature of the response from policymakers to large scale economic shocks since 2000

06/02/2022

Inquisitorial System in India
The inquisitorial system can be defined by comparison with the adversarial, or accusatorial, system used in the United States and Great Britain. In the Adversary System, two or more opposing parties gather evidence and present the evidence, and their arguments, to a judge or jury. The judge or jury knows nothing of the litigation until the parties present their cases to the decision maker. The defendant in a criminal trial is not required to testify.
In the inquisitorial system, the presiding judge is not a passive recipient of information. Rather, the presiding judge is primarily responsible for supervising the gathering of the evidence necessary to resolve the case. He or she actively steers the search for evidence and questions the witnesses, including the respondent or defendant. Attorneys play a more passive role, suggesting routes of inquiry for the presiding judge and following the judge's questioning with questioning of their own. Attorney questioning is often brief because the judge tries to ask all relevant questions
Sections 311, 313 of the Cr.P.C and Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 have trappings of an inquisitorial system as they allow the judge to play a more-pro-active role and participate more actively in trial, rather than being a mute spectator. The idea is for the judge to be a referee (run with the parties) rather than be a passive umpire.
Supreme Court’s reading of Section 156(3) of the CrPC and reading it in such a manner for it to include ‘the power to monitor investigation’ (The power to order investigation would have implicit within it the power to ensure that the investigation is an effective investigation is how the Supreme Court sees it in Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others (AIR 2008 SC 907 , (2008) 2 SCC 409 ) it was held “ In the present case, there was an investigation by the G.R.P., Mathura and also two Courts of Inquiry held by the Army authorities and they found that it was a case of su***de. Hence, in Hon’ble Apex Court’s opinion, the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for a CBI inquiry. With the above observations, this appeal stands dismissed. But, it laid down the ambit and scope of Section 156(3) CrPC and held that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.