The Bombay High Court has fined two contemnors Rs.5 lakh for deliberate and willful breach of its interim orders which restrained them from creating any tenancies with regard to a property that belongs to a trust.
The high court has commuted the life sentence of a man who poured kerosene on his wife, burnt her and later extinguished the fire with water, as he had not “anticipated that the act done by him would have such a proportion that his wife might die”.
A full bench of the high court has examined whether the state retains powers conferred by Section 10 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1932 to make certain offences cognizable and non-bailable, even though the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 was repealed and replaced by Criminal Procedure Code 1973.
Dismissing anticipatory bail applications of investors in a construction firm that build illegal structures, the high court has observed that they can be prosecuted.
The high court has rejected a revision application filed by one Yashwantrao Mane, director of a Trust that runs an ashram school that has been charged for offences punishable under Section 19 r/w Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, Section 202 of IPC and Section 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Protection of Offences) Act 1988.
(The above article has been compiled by CS Reema Jain)