LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Dr. Leo Rebello (President Litigants Welfare Forum)     05 December 2011

Remedy in case of prosectuion failure

Police either dilute FIRs of the complainants or file bogus cases/counter cases against the complainant after receiving bribes. It is a big business. In Criminal Cases, the Asst / Public Prosecutors and Magistrates/Judges too make big money by diluting or complicating the cases upon receiving bribes, which usually the Court Clerks or Court Peons or agents collect .  What are the remedies available?.

(a) Can the Complainant or his Advocate Cross Examine to strengthen his/her case when the APP or PP deliberately do not conduct proceedings as per the law?

(b) Can the Complainant put proper record, witness list, and other written objections on record of the court to show where the Investigating Officer has failed? 

(c) What are the appropriate sections in the IPC/CrPC and the case laws if any.

(d) Can the IO and the APP manipulating records or telling lies on Oath in Court, or threatening the Complainant be prosecuted simultaneously? 

(e) What remedy is available to the Complainant, if the Magistrates or Judges too connive with the corrupt.

Learned members on this Club, please respond pointwise.  Thanks.

 

 



Learning

 3 Replies

Dr. Leo Rebello (President Litigants Welfare Forum)     05 December 2011

Supreme Court of India had started online petitions, a few years ago. My very first WP petition on the Grave Irregularities in the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections was dismissed by the then GJI KGB, after receiving telephone instructions from the Law Ministry minions to facilitate the present President to get elected.  Thereafter I filed a Review, which too was not allowed. I also sent a Notice to the Advocate General of India for Criminal Contempt of the Court against KGB and his brother judges (who though equal on the bench sat mutely). Instead of Advocate General replying, the Registrar of the SCI replied to the effect that it cannot be allowed. That said Ex CJI KGB, against whom there are several formal complaints for his removal (mine is one of them) is shamelessly continuing as the Chairman of NHRC. 

Could the Really Learned members on this group advice

(a) How to Restore my said WP no.  WP(C) 219 of 2007 dismissed without assigning reasons be retored?

(b) How Mr.KGBalkjishna, Ex CJI can be removed from the august post of  Chairman of NHRC?

Some one may also inform me or put an RTI application, as to
(c) How many online petitions were registered in the SCI since inception till today (give year wise numbers), how many were disposed, how many routined closed?

Recently, the Bombay High Court has started online petitions facility?
(d) What is the experience of those who have used that facility?

Dr. Leo Rebello (President Litigants Welfare Forum)     05 December 2011

SYNOPSIS OF DR.LEO REBELLO’S PIL FILED
IN THE SUPREME COURT POINTING OUT IRREGULARITIES
IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS SINCE 1974.

Dr. Leo Rebello, e-filed a PIL in the Supreme Court of India under article 32 - Original Jurisdiction. The WP(C) 219 of 2007,  inter alia, notes and demands reliefs as under :

1.. That under Article 53 of the Constitution, the President of
India is the Executive Head of India and his Election cannot become Selection. 

2..  That issuing of Whip in favour of a particular candidate should be prohibited in the Presidential and Vice Presidential Elections through a Writ of Prohibition.

3.. That the number of proposers and seconders be reduced from 100 to 35 only and reduction in  deposit amount which presently is  Rs.25,000.  In other words the Petition challenges Sections 5B(a) and  5C(1) of the Presidential Election Act 1952 and Rules made thereunder in 1974. 

4.. That presently Presidential elections are sham and lead to violations of articles 14, 21, 54, 55(3), 58, 71(3) and 324 of the Constitution of India and sections 171C and 171F of the IPC.

5.. That Nomination forms (Form no.2) should be accepted in all States since Presidential election is a National Election.

6.. That according to article 58(b) the President should be 35 years and above (the entry point). But usually the Presidents "selected" are of the retirement age 70 and above (which should be the exit point) the petitioner suggests 

7.. That Rashtrapati Bhavan should be a Watch Dog, instead it is being turned into a
Retirement Village when India's  60%  population population is below 35.

President’s office is the highest elective office. If pliable persons get into the saddle, then the entire focus of the nation changes from hard realities like poverty, malnutrition deaths, illiteracy, providing shelter to the millions, to missiles programmes and rocket science, nuclear deal, etc. Rashtrapati Bhawan must continue to inspire national confidence and remain above all controversies and petty politicking.

 

Infact, in short Dr. Leo Rebello is suggesting that the Cabinet will function under the direct supervision of the Elected President with elected Vice President being his deputy. This will usher in True partyless Democracy. In that case,  we will not have the sorry spectacle that  we are presently experiencing wherein a pliable PM appointed by a

"foreign hand" (pun intended) working for "foreign hand" as at present.  Let us Work for Change.

 

Sandeep (firm)     05 December 2011

Many a times investigating agencies collude with criminals by taking undue favours and give them clean chit. However, in order to show progress of their investigations, innocnets are targetted and charged with false cases.

 

While criminals make merry innocents are forced spend their time and money in court to prove their innocence.

 

Sandeep


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register