Shenoy Foundation of Education & Research

04/06/2022

Until

We are providing law practical training to new law students and making them efficient soldiers in th

17/03/2021

“LAWS”
LITIGANTS ADVISORY AND WELFARE SOCIETY
ASSOCIATE OF
SHENOY FOUNDATION OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

TOPIC: JUDICIARY AND JUSTICE (PART – III)
DATE: 17/03/2021

The Lower Courts functioned in India for the last 70 years without any responsibility and continue to make Error of Law and Mistake of Law in spite of the fact, the High Courts and the Supreme Court dealt with such Error of Law and Mistake of Law. Yet the Lower Court Judges without correcting themselves, still continue to commit such errors and deprive the rights and interest of the citizens. The following case laws shows the testimony of ignorance of the Lower Courts Judges and their attitude to disobey Orders of the Supreme Court. Had they been in Foreign Courts they should have gone behind the bars for contempt of Courts. Article 141 of Indian Constitution is a strong weapon but unused.
When a Statute is said to be in-applicable, but it is really applicable, then it is a Question of Law, (AIR 1957 SC 264). Even today, the Lower Courts continue to do Error of Law. If this is the habit of the Lower Court Judges, then Sovereign Citizen have to question the judiciary and make them to adhere to the Superior Courts directions and Case laws. View taken by the First Class Magistrate of Kalyan Court about section 190 and 197 of Cr.P.C is fresh incident of such dis-obedience.

1. Totally taking un-tenable view of law, then it is an error of Law, (AIR 1965 ALL 790).

2. Disregarding of essential judicial duties, is an Error of Law, First Class Magistrate Kalyan finding is fresh in this direction.

3. Omission to go into the merits of the case is an Error of Law, (1965 ALL .J. 884).

4. Ruling must be followed, failure to do so an Error of Law, (AIR 1960 AP 17). Lower Courts usually decline to follow the ruling of Constitutional Court. First Class Magistrate Kalyan act is fresh in the direction.

5. When an authority basis its decision on totally extraneous consideration. It is an Error of Law, (AIR 1961 Ker 77).

6. Not taking into account material circumstances it is an Error of Law, (AIR 1962 Mad 366).

7. Overlooking essential requirements of law, is an Error of Law, (AIR 1962 Mad 366).

8. Overlooking essential requirements of Law, is an Error of Law, (AIR 1960 Ori 205).

9. Rejection of an application by non-speaking order is an Error of Law, (AIR 1989 SC 2327).

10. Arriving at a decision which no reasonably minded person could have arrived amounts to an Error of Law, (AIR 1964 Bom 89).

11. Exclude evidence which is admissible amounts to an Error of Law, (AIR 1976 SC 232).

It is the principle that Error of Law and question of Law can be agitated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

It seems that, in spite hammering by Constitutional Courts on Lower Courts to mend their ways and style, still they do not seems to be obedient and pass illegal and erroneous Judgement and Order and drive the people to appeal and Writ Court.

The Doctrine of law is that, every person is expected to know the Law. Not knowing the Law is not an excuse. If so, it seems Lower Court Judges are licensed to do Error of Law and Mistake of Law.

The Citizen of the country go to Lower Courts to get the Judgement containing Error of Law and Mistake of Law, by paying court fees?

When one can expect that the Lower Judiciary can do justice?
Let us wait for the Blue Moon to Appear in The Sky.

-V.M Shenoy.

16/03/2021

“LAWS”
LITIGANTS ADVISORY AND WELFARE SOCIETY
ASSOCIATE OF
SHENOY FOUNDATION OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH

TOPIC: JUDICIARY AND JUSTICE (PART – 2)
DATE: 16/03/2021

In our earlier post, we had referred the observation of “LORD DENNING” about the mode of trial adopted by India and its result. But, Ex – Justice Dalveer Bhandari of Supreme Court, although deferred with the observation of Lord Denning, highlighted the lacuna of the judges. He made the observation that, A Judge in Indian system has to be regarded as failing to exercise his judicial duty, if in the guise of remaining neutral, he opts to remain passive to the proceedings before him. He has to always keep in mind that “every trail is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest”. In order to bring on record the relevant fact he has to play an active role. Can we assume that a Judge in this mode is only a dummy or symbolic Person? Are we going to such a dummy for justice?
During the last 70 years, the Judges of the lowest components like Junior and Senior Division, disregarded the advices of the several judges of the High Court and Supreme Court and ruined the people of India by depriving their rights, when they stepped into Judiciary. When British people gave independence and left, they told that they ruled India for 200 years, Indians cannot even rule for 100 Years. This seems to be true when we observe through the angle of lower Judiciary, where ordinary people meet for justice. In continental form of trial, the justice is delivered at the root level but, our system gives justice when people touch top level. Therefore, people are not concerned, which mode of trial gives what result. They expect justice at root level but, it is just impossible unless the Article 234 and Article 235 of Constitution are amended and transparency of the judiciary is introduced. Ex- Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Dalveer Bhandari went a step ahead and shown the mirror of law to the lower court judges about the provision of section 30 in C.P.C. and remarked that they make very little use of it.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari further went a step ahead and made observation that, “Truth is the very soul of Justice”. Therefore, truth should become the idea to inspire the court to pursue. In short, an active judge can only understand the law and observation of superior courts and try to do justice at root level. A million dollar question before the people are, where were the active judges during last 70 years? Why people feel injustice is delivered? Is there any chance to improve judicial system?
Even today the lower court judges are like postmen to deliver the case paper to Appeal Court to do justice and punish the litigants to pay again court fee stamp duty for Appeal and wait for another 10 years, so that Government will introduce Nyaya Mitra to account for cases pending more than 10 Years.
Like Iron cuts the Iron, the United States Judiciary in the matter of United States v/s J. Lee Havens 466 U.S 620, 100 St. Ct. 1912. It was held that the Government may use illegally obtained evidence to impeach a defendant’s fraudulent statements during cross- examination for the purpose of arriving at the truth. This shows that a Judge should be active to do justice not sit passive like a referee.
The law courts are meant to administer law and to conduct the trial according to law. If it is otherwise, then the judgment delivered by him is without jurisdiction. An order or Judgement passed without jurisdiction and it is nullity
Therefore, rather than driving the litigant to appeal, the judge should be made accountable to the provision of review or Section 151 of C.P.C to correct his own order if it cause impeachment of law.

-V.M Shenoy.

16/03/2021

“LAWS”
LITIGANTS ADVISORY AND WELFARE SOCIETY
ASSOCIATE OF
SHENOY FOUNDATION OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
TOPIC: JUDICIARY AND JUSTICE (PART – 1)
DATE: 14/03/2021
The injustice is seen only in Human Society and Human World. All other living creatures do enjoy the justice as per Natural Law. Why man is crying for justice? Where he went wrong? What is the reason? To know answer to all questions, it is the “Thinking Power” bestowed on him is to be used.
Thinking power has the potentiality to divide the man to Dev-Guna (Godly Character) and Asura-Guna (Devil Character) Thinking power when used in right direction, it creates virtues, whereas if it is used in wrong direction, it creates vices. Virtues are known as Godly Character and vices are known as Devil Character.
APPLICATION OF THINKING POWER BY JUDGES:
India has evolved adversarial mode of adjudication. LORD DENNING in the case of Jones v/s National Coal Board (1957) 2 QB-55 has observed that:
“In the system of trial that we have evolved in this country, the judge sits to hear and determine the issues raised by the parties, not to conduct an investigation or examination on behalf of the Society at large, as happens, we believe in some foreign countries”
LORD DENNING further observed in the said case that “It’s all very well to paint justice blind, but she does better without a bandage round her eyes. She should be blind indeed to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth” Lower Court Judges Consider this bandage around her eyes is deemed permission for judges to do favour for own interest or prejudice the right to irritate the litigant.
Thus, the mode of trial, and bandage around the eyes of Goddess of justice are to be properly understood by the legal fraternity especially, the judges of the lower courts, then only the people can expect justice from them. If they do not understand the proper meaning of mode of trial and bandage around the eyes of goddess of justice, there is certainly, injustice get delivered and the echo will sound more and more that don’t get into the court for justice.
Again, it shows the ability of thinking power of the judges of the court. It is the thinking of the Judges of the Lower Courts that they have to sit like umpire in the cricket match and determine who has won and who has lost. He thinks that this is his duty for which he is appointed. There is no responsibility, no accountability and at the top, he has no ability at all to think further.
This limited thinking and non-responsibility makes him to favour someone for his personal interest rather than society interest.
This is the grey area, people keep distance from judiciary and lose faith on the judiciary.
If the Judge further thinks about framing issues and trial, then only he can understand that he is not merely an umpire but has greatest responsibility to impart justice to people and get their appreciation about judiciary. The first date of hearing is the date for application of mind by the judges for framing issues and framing charges. This exercise certainly makes him to apply his mind and thinking power. Again, trial is a voyage of inquest of truth, which needs investigation and examination, with due application of thinking power. Thus, thinking power either limits a judge to the level of an umpire or makes him to discharge his duty as a responsible person in the judiciary to do justice.
Mostly lower court judges remain in the first stage itself. They do not want to take any responsibility. They think that the adversarial form of trial is a shield to avoid all responsibility and to encourage them to do all evils remaining as judge.
The Judge of the Lower Court thinks that goddess of Justice is having a band around her eyes and interpret that like a cat drinks milk by closing its eyes and decide itself that nobody has seen it drinking milk. Similarly, the bandage is a shield to judge to think himself that even after doing illegal act, he can consider himself that he did no wrong.
Therefore, lower court judges have to change their attitude and apply thinking power a gift given by god and do justice for people at the root level rather than driving them to the top level to avail justice. Otherwise a great wind will blow them off and they will not know the reason why?
-V.M Shenoy.

11/03/2021

LAWS”
LITIGANTS ADVISORY AND WELFARE SOCIETY
ASSOCIATE OF
SHENOY FOUNDATION OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ([email protected])
TOPIC: INDIAN JUDICIARY AND NYAYA MITRA
Dated: 11/03/2021

For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e, ‘Satya’ (truth) and ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of justice delivery system which was in vogue in pre-independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has over-shadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the Court proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the Courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
The quest for personal gain has produced MP (muscle power, money power and mafia power) which have strengthen the hands of executive and produced immunity for lowest component of the Indian Judiciary, who in turn separated the common man from steping into the Holy Temple of Goddess of Justice, thereby, the echo has sounded “not to step into police station and Judiciary in once life”. It has further sounded that, “lost the faith in Judiciary”. Therefore, the present Government has brought out NYAYA MITRA SCHEME which people believe is a weapon to cut the nyaya shatru, lived for the past 70 years.
The past experience shows that several schemes were introduced to do justice for the common man, but not achieving the said object the High Courts and Supreme Court work hard to root out the evil in the lowest judiciary which is the joining place of litigants who decide the faith of judiciary by telling injustice is getting delivered. The common man must have, not seen the building of the High Court and Supreme Court so they are unfamiliar of the merits of these Courts. Based upon their experience on the lowest forum of the judiciary, they random say Court is not for the common man in India. Therefore, Nyaya Mitra has a great role to correct the lowest judiciary i.e. Junior and Senior Division of the Civil Court and First Class Magistrate Court.
The present role of the Nyaya Mitra is to prepare detailed list of 10 years old pending cases and remedial steps. In this exercise the lowest component of the judiciary in its allergy of disposal drive may throw the merited cases as if throwing the chaff contained grain.
The reason for mounting back log of cases is the lack of ability of Judges in lower judiciary to understand the Law.
One who has ability and he pose before his own ability then it becomes possibility for him. Similarly if he response to his ability then it becomes responsibility. Again if he accounts for his ability, it becomes accountability. On the other hand if mafias impose their ability on the Judges then it becomes impossibility for them to do justice. Therefore, the lack of ability of the Judge is a cause of mounting back log of cases.
The lower judiciary is chasing the people away from getting the justice and the said judiciary is distancing from the Constitution of the India and the Country.


-V. M. SHENOY

09/03/2021

LAWS”
LITIGANTS ADVISORY AND WELFARE SOCIETY
ASSOCIATE OF
SHENOY FOUNDATION OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ([email protected])
TOPIC: CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
AND
“VASUDHAIVA KUTUMBAAM”
DATE 09/03/2021

THE CONSTUTION OF INDIA, came into existence on, 26TH JANUARY 1950. People used to say that India is a rich country inhabited by poor Citizens. People also say that, the Constitution of India is a rich Constitution but handled by negligent Citizens.

During the past 70 years, the people of India were downgraded form poor to below poor. The country rather than progressing became sick.

The Covid-19 has provided the ground reality, which assisted us to come to definite answer, pin-pointing where people went wrong, who stopped the country from progressing etc.

The Modi Government works to build “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” and also stated in the Security Council Meeting about the aim of India to create Universal Family i.e. “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”. Is it Possible? Whether Constitution of India has any provision to build “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”? By looking to the MOTTO of the Constitution, it seems possible, subject to correction of lower judiciary and executive departments.

The People Of India solemnly resolved to constitute India into Sovereign, Socialistic, Secular, Democratic, Republic to secure All Citizens the right of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity with a view to promote Unity and Integrity of Nation, thereby it can transform into a Universal Family, “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”.

Therefore, the people of India, entrusted the drafting of the Constitution to wise, Architect and Draftsmen, who drafted the Constitution which came into existence as on 26th January, 1950

MOTTO
The Constitution maker selected the Motto of Constitution as “SATYAMEVA JAYATE”. This MOTTO has its own tale to tell about the practice of truth as practiced during Satyuga, during ruling of Satyawan Harishchandra, Worshiping of Satya Devtha- Dharma Devtha, who is known as goddess of justice, which is used as a symbol of courts, and also preaching of Mahatma Gandhi i.e. Satyagraha ( Desire Of Truth).

SATYAMEVA JAYATE (Truth alone Triumph) is the only magic word, to promote humanity, unity and Integrity of the Nation, thereby the “Constitution of India” is said to be the “BIBLE OF HUMANITY”.

To practice truth in human life, the Constitution has made mandatory provision of administration of OATH to President, Vice President, Ministers, Governors, Judges of High Courts and Supreme Courts, M.P.s, M.L.A.s and such other Constitutional heads.

Administration of Truth, in Court proceedings and also submission of Affidavits and Affirmation to official purposes are made mandatory as a mode of practice of truth in the court. (Trial is a Voyage inquest Of Truth).

The experience proves that 70 years, people became poor to poorer in spite of a vibrant Constitution of India. The reasons are as follows:-

1) Laws made by the Government in the past, were very poor, and as such, the present government has to scrap 800 Laws.

2) The lowest component of Judiciary like Civil Court- Junior & Senior Division and Magistrate of 1st class are uncared about High Court and Supreme Court guidelines and judgements; and their poor Law knowledge, disobedience of higher Courts direction, injecting whimsical ideas in judgement made them do injustice, thereby the people lost faith in Judiciary, Same is the result of executive also.

If lower judiciary and judicial staff are kept under CCTV observation and litigants meeting by Higher Officials of High Court/District Court at least once in 3 months and redress their grievances then, we can expect substantial change in judiciary, thereby we can dream “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam”.


-V.M.Shenoy

23/02/2021

LAWS”
LITIGANTS ADVISORY AND WELFARE SOCIETY
ASSOCIATE OF
SHENOY FOUNDATION OF EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ([email protected])
TOPIC: AN OVERVIEW OF SECTION 197 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 2008
Dated: 23/02/2021

This institution has done research about section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 2008, and publish our finding as follows:

Section 197 Cr.P.C. Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants:-
1. When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or Public Servant, not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acing or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, NO COURT SHALL TAKE THE COGNIZANCE of such offence, except with the previous sanction:
of the State Government or Central Government as the case may be.

No Court can take the Cognizance. This is the area, our research is invited. A higher authority or power dictates the Court not to take the Cognizance. This may mean that the Court is under some authority or power. That power is again stated as Government. Except with the previous sanction of the Government.

Government:- According to the Constitution of India, the three branches of the Government are Judiciary, Executive and Legislature. The judiciary is one of the branch of the Government. If so, why Court is not allowed to take Cognizance? It is to be understood who is the government, before we proceed further. For the purpose of coming into the conclusion of the Government, it is necessary to understand the Source of Power. The Sovereignty of the Country is the Source of Power.

The Cr.P.C was introduced by the British Government in the year 1898, although amended from time to time, the word ‘NO COURT CAN TAKE COGNIZANCE’ is kept alive. The Sovereignty of Great Britain rests with the Crown and Sovereign immunity rests with the King. This may mean, executive head having the sovereign power. Therefore we can find the order passed by the British government shows” His Majesty’s Government” whereas the order passed by the Indian government shows that “Government of India”. President and the Governor are the head of the state and not the Government. Prime Minister and the Chief Minister are the head of the government.

Contrary to British Sovereignty, India has adopted the sovereign power of the People of India. The State, India is although Sovereign, it has no immunity as per Article 300 of the Constitution. The Sovereign power rests with the people and in turn the house of representatives of the people, i.e Legislature, is the head to be known as Government. We can often hear that Congress Government is ruling, B.J.P. Government has come in power etc. Therefore, Legislature is the Government, for the purpose of section 197 of Cr.P.C.

When sovereignty is changed from Executive to Legislature, then the immunity also changed to protection. The section 197 of Cr.P.C stands on two legs viz offence and offender. When sovereignty got changed, section 190 of Cr.P.C empowered the magistrate to take cognizance of offence. Not the offender.

The fate of the offender is decided by the law enacted by the Legislature viz applying for sanction, taking the action by the authority within the 3 months and after expiry of 3 months it is deemed sanction etc.

Thus, we can find that legislature from time to time amended the statute. The Maharashtra government amended section 190 of Cr.P.C and spelt out deemed sanction after 90 days.

The Constitution has given immunity to President, Governor etc and such they cannot be prosecuted even with the sanction of the Government. The removing process is separately provided by way of Impeachment.

Civil Judge Junior and Senior Division are the creatures of the law namely Civil Court Act and their appointment is done by State Government. Therefore sanction of the State Government is alone needed not the Governor sanction.

We hope that this research work of our will assist most of the Junior Lawyers, Practicing in Magistrate Court.

-V. M. SHENOY

20/02/2021

कानून"
साहित्य और साहित्यिक समाज
सहायता करें
शिक्षा और अनुसंधान के SHENOY फाउंडेशन ([email protected])
टॉपिक: क्लीयर जुडिकरी मूवमेंट
दिनांक: 20/02/2021

न्यायपालिका की छवि दांव पर है। लोअर ज्यूडिशियरी शरारत करती है। लोग न्यायपालिका में विश्वास खो देते हैं।
अधीनस्थ न्यायपालिका अधिकारी ज्यादातर कानून को जाने बिना या मूर्खता या व्यक्तिगत हित के कारण न्यायपालिका की छवि को नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं, जिससे, भारत के लोगों ने इस पर विश्वास खोना शुरू कर दिया। यदि सभी कुछ छवि को बनाए रखा जाता है जो उच्च न्यायालय और सुप्रीम कोर्ट की त्वरित कार्रवाई के कारण है। अधिकांश निचली न्यायपालिका के अधिकारियों ने कानून, केस कानून का पालन करने की अवज्ञा करके उच्च न्यायालय और उच्चतम न्यायालय से दूर रहना शुरू कर दिया और संविधान के अनुच्छेदों की व्याख्या करना भी शुरू कर दिया। यह संपूर्ण न्यायपालिका और पूरे देश के लिए एक बड़ा खतरा है।
हम प्रथम श्रेणी मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा पारित आदेश प्रकाशित करते हैं। 80 साल की एक महिला मुकदमेबाज ने सरकार के मुख्य सचिव के लिए सरकार के मुख्य सचिव को आवेदन यू / एस 197 जमा करने के तीन महीने की अवधि समाप्त करने के बाद Cr.P.C की धारा 190 के तहत शिकायत दर्ज की। फाइलिंग स्टेज पर ही शिकायत को एक नंबर दिए बिना मजिस्ट्रेट ने एक आदेश पारित किया जो इस देश की कानूनी बिरादरी को झटका देगा।
आदेश कम EXH.1
शिकायतकर्ता की सुनवाई करते अधिवक्ता। अनुलोम विलोम। यह न्यायिक अधिकारी के खिलाफ वर्तमान में सिविल कोर्ट, कल्याण में बतौर जेटी कार्यरत है। सिविल जज, जूनियर डिवीजन। आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 190 के अनुसार, शिकायत दर्ज करने से पहले, चिंतनित यू / सेकंड के रूप में अनुमोदन होना चाहिए। 197 की Cr.P.C. पूछताछ पर, अधिवक्ता ने मेरा ध्यान दस्तावेज क्रमांक १०६ की ओर दिलाया। कहा कि दस्तावेज Cr.P.C की धारा १ ९ brought के अनुसार अभियोजन की अनुमति के लिए प्रार्थना के संबंध में है। यह देखा गया है कि उक्त दस्तावेज मुख्य सचिव, महाराष्ट्र सरकार, मुंबई, मुंबई को संबोधित है। Cr.P.C की धारा 197 के अनुसार, न्यायाधीशों या लोक सेवकों के खिलाफ मुकदमा चलाने के लिए, प्राधिकारी की मंजूरी होनी चाहिए जो उन्हें नियुक्त करता है और उन्हें हटाता है। वर्तमान मामले में, न्यायिक अधिकारी के खिलाफ शिकायत की जाती है। भाग IV, संविधान के अनुच्छेद 234 के अनुसार, अधीनस्थ न्यायाधीशों की सेवा से नियुक्ति या हटाने की शक्ति राज्यपाल के पास निहित है। इसलिए, वर्तमान मामले में राज्यपाल का अनुमोदन आवश्यक है और समान प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है। अनुपस्थिति में, Cr.P.C की धारा 190 के अनुसार, शिकायत स्वीकार्य नहीं है। तदनुसार, मैं निम्नलिखित आदेश पारित करने के लिए आगे बढ़ता हूं।

गण
दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 190 के अनुसार उचित अनुपालन के लिए शिकायत को उसके प्रस्तुतकर्ता को लौटा दिया जाता है।

इस प्रकार, न्यायाधीश ने एक न्यायाधीश की सभी सीमाओं को पार कर लिया है और न्यायिक अनुशासन को नष्ट करने के रूप में कार्य किया है जो न्यायाधीश के स्वार्थी उद्देश्य के कारण पूरी न्यायपालिका को पीड़ित करने के लिए ला रहा है। वि ० प्र ०।
1. उसने धर्म को गलत बताया। 190 और सेक। 197 Cr.P.C या कानून के अनुसार कार्य करने के लिए उपेक्षित।
2. उन्होंने महाराष्ट्र संशोधन अधिनियम का पालन करने से इनकार कर दिया है। 190, मजिस्ट्रेट को संज्ञान लेने के लिए सशक्त बनाना जैसे कि मंजूरी दी गई हो।
3. उन्होंने शिकायत के प्रारंभिक चरण में मंजूरी के बिना संज्ञान लेने के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट केस कानून को स्वीकार करने से इनकार कर दिया है।
4. उन्होंने एकांत पर विचार करने से इनकार कर दिया। २०१२ में संशोधन के रूप में महाराष्ट्र सिविल कोर्ट अधिनियम के २२।
इसलिए, स्वच्छ न्यायपालिका के लिए दूसरी स्वतंत्रता के लिए संघर्ष करने के लिए भारत के सभी अधिवक्ताओं के मंच पर यह हमारा स्पष्ट आह्वान है। जिन लोगों को लगता है कि यह एक वास्तविक कॉल है, वे ऊपर दिए गए हमारे ईमेल पते पर अपनी राय भेज सकते हैं।

-वी। एम। शेन

20/02/2021

कानून"
साहित्य और साहित्यिक समाज
सहायता करें
शिक्षा और अनुसंधान के SHENOY फाउंडेशन ([email protected])
टॉपिक: क्लीयर जुडिकरी मूवमेंट पार्ट 2
दिनांक: 20/02/2021

न्यायपालिका की छवि दांव पर है। लोअर ज्यूडिशियरी शरारत करती है। लोग न्यायपालिका में विश्वास खो देते हैं।
अधीनस्थ न्यायपालिका अधिकारी ज्यादातर कानून को जाने बिना या मूर्खता या व्यक्तिगत हित के कारण न्यायपालिका की छवि को नुकसान पहुंचाते हैं, जिससे, भारत के लोगों ने इस पर विश्वास खोना शुरू कर दिया। यदि सभी कुछ छवि को बनाए रखा जाता है जो उच्च न्यायालय और सुप्रीम कोर्ट की त्वरित कार्रवाई के कारण है। अधिकांश निचली न्यायपालिका के अधिकारियों ने कानून, केस कानून का पालन करने की अवज्ञा करके उच्च न्यायालय और उच्चतम न्यायालय से दूर रहना शुरू कर दिया और संविधान के अनुच्छेदों की व्याख्या करना भी शुरू कर दिया। यह संपूर्ण न्यायपालिका और पूरे देश के लिए एक बड़ा खतरा है।
हम प्रथम श्रेणी मजिस्ट्रेट द्वारा पारित आदेश प्रकाशित करते हैं। एक जमींदार परिवार ने विकास के लिए एक बिल्डर को एक संपत्ति दी थी। पुलिस की मिलीभगत से बिल्डर ने उन्हें परेशान करना और झूठे मामले में फंसाना शुरू कर दिया। इसलिए, उन्होंने मुख्य सचिव से अनुमति लेने की उचित प्रक्रिया के बाद सीआरपी की धारा 190 के तहत शिकायत को भर दिया है। 90 दिनों की समाप्ति के बाद शिकायतकर्ता ने शिकायत को प्रथम श्रेणी मजिस्ट्रेट के पास भेज दिया, जिसने प्रारंभिक चरण में आदेश पारित किया है:

गण
आदेश कम EXH.1
शिकायतकर्ता की सुनवाई करते अधिवक्ता। अनुलोम विलोम। यह डाय के खिलाफ दायर शिकायत है। पुलिस आयुक्त, कल्याण और पुलिस निरीक्षक, खडकपाड़ा पुलिस स्टेशन। आपराधिक प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 190 के अनुसार, शिकायत दर्ज करने से पहले चिंतनशील यू / सेकंड के रूप में अनुमोदन किया जाना चाहिए। 197 की Cr.P.C. पूछताछ पर, अधिवक्ता ने मेरा ध्यान SrNo में दस्तावेज की ओर दिलाया। 26. Cr.P.C की धारा 197 के अनुसार अभियोजन की अनुमति के लिए प्रार्थना पत्र संबंधित है। यह कहा गया है कि दस्तावेज मुख्य सचिव, मुंबई के मुख्य सचिव को संबोधित है। धारा 197of Cr.P.C के अनुसार। न्यायाधीशों या लोक सेवक के खिलाफ मुकदमा चलाने के लिए, प्राधिकारी की मंजूरी होनी चाहिए जो उन्हें नियुक्त और हटाए। वर्तमान मामले में, डाई के खिलाफ शिकायत की जाती है। पुलिस आयुक्त और पुलिस निरीक्षक। महाराष्ट्र राज्य पुलिस आयुक्त अधिनियम के अनुसार, राज्य के साथ पुलिस आयुक्त की सेवा से शक्ति नियुक्ति या निष्कासन। इसलिए, वर्तमान मामले में राज्य की मंजूरी आवश्यक है और इसे प्राप्त नहीं किया गया है। उसी के अभाव में, Cr.P.C की धारा 190 के अनुसार, शिकायत स्वीकार्य नहीं है। तदनुसार, मैं निम्नलिखित आदेश पारित करने के लिए आगे बढ़ता हूं।

दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता की धारा 190 के अनुसार उचित अनुपालन के लिए शिकायत को उसके प्रस्तुतकर्ता को लौटा दिया जाता है।
इस प्रकार, न्यायाधीश ने एक न्यायाधीश की सभी सीमाओं को पार कर लिया है और न्यायिक अनुशासन को नष्ट करने के रूप में कार्य किया है जो न्यायाधीश के स्वार्थी उद्देश्य के कारण पूरी न्यायपालिका को पीड़ित करने के लिए ला रहा है। वि ० प्र ०।
1. उसने धर्म को गलत बताया। 190 और सेक। 197 Cr.P.C या कानून के अनुसार कार्य करने के लिए उपेक्षित।
2. उन्होंने महाराष्ट्र संशोधन अधिनियम का पालन करने से इनकार कर दिया है। 190, मजिस्ट्रेट को संज्ञान लेने के लिए सशक्त बनाना जैसे कि मंजूरी दी गई हो।
3. उन्होंने शिकायत के प्रारंभिक चरण में मंजूरी के बिना संज्ञान लेने के लिए सुप्रीम कोर्ट केस कानून को स्वीकार करने से इनकार कर दिया है।
4. यह एक नियमित अभ्यास है कि लोअर कोर्ट के न्यायाधीश बिल्डरों के साथ मिलकर और पुलिस अधिकारियों के साथ मित्रता करके आम आदमी के अधिकारों से वंचित करते हैं और उन्हें परेशान करते हैं। हाईकोर्ट बॉम्बे के जस्टिस कथावला ने बिल्डरों को उनके सांठगांठ के मामले में बार-बार पुलिस को कड़ी फटकार लगाई, लेकिन वे हाईकोर्ट के ऐसे आदेशों की परवाह नहीं करते।
5. मजिस्ट्रेट का वर्तमान आदेश ऐसे बिल्डर्स और पुलिस को बचा रहा है।
इसलिए, स्वच्छ न्यायपालिका के लिए दूसरी स्वतंत्रता के लिए संघर्ष करने के लिए भारत के सभी अधिवक्ताओं के मंच पर यह हमारा स्पष्ट आह्वान है। जिन लोगों को लगता है कि यह एक वास्तविक कॉल है, वे ऊपर दिए गए हमारे ईमेल पते पर अपनी राय भेज सकते हैं।
स्वतंत्र न्यायपालिका अच्छी है। उच्च न्यायालय और उच्चतम न्यायालय के स्वतंत्र न्यायाधीश भी अच्छे हैं, लेकिन निचली अदालत के स्वतंत्र न्यायाधीशों को ज्यादातर तानाशाहों के रूप में देखा जाता है। इसलिए या तो उन्हें वहां संवैधानिक न्यायालय द्वारा स्थिति दिखाई जानी चाहिए या विधायिका को संविधान के अनुच्छेद 234 में संशोधन करना चाहिए।
-वी। एम। शेन