Renewal Is Not Extension Unless Terms Are Fixed in Same Deed: Bombay High Court Strikes Down ₹64.75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand on Nine-Year Lease Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts—Appointment Void Ab Initio Even After 27 Years: Allahabad High Court Litigants Cannot Be Penalised For Attending Criminal Proceedings Listed On Same Day: Delhi High Court Restores Civil Suit Dismissed For Default Limited Permissive Use Confers No Right to Expand Trademark Beyond Agreed Territories: Bombay High Court Enforces Consent Decree in ‘New Indian Express’ Trademark Dispute Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition Conspiracy Cannot Be Presumed from Illicit Relationship: Bombay High Court Acquits Wife, Affirms Conviction of Paramour in Murder Case Bail in NDPS Commercial Quantity Cases Cannot Be Granted Without Satisfying Twin Conditions of Section 37: Delhi High Court Cancels Bail Orders Terming Them ‘Perversely Illegal’ Article 21 Rights Not Absolute In Cases Threatening National Security: Supreme Court Sets Aside Bail Granted In Jnaneshwari Express Derailment Case A Computer Programme That Solves a Technical Problem Is Not Barred Under Section 3(k): Madras High Court Allows Patent for Software-Based Data Lineage System Premature Auction Without 30-Day Redemption Violates Section 176 and Bank’s Own Terms: Orissa High Court Quashes Canara Bank’s Gold Loan Sale Courts Can’t Stall Climate-Resilient Public Projects: Madras High Court Lifts Status Quo on Eco Park, Pond Works at Race Club Land No Cross-Examination, No Conviction: Gujarat High Court Quashes Customs Penalty for Violating Principles of Natural Justice ITAT Was Wrong in Disregarding Statements Under Oath, But Additions Unsustainable Without Corroborative Evidence: Madras High Court Deduction Theory Under Old Land Acquisition Law Has No Place Under 2013 Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enhances Compensation for Metro Land Acquisition UIT Cannot Turn Around After Issuing Pattas, It's Estopped Now: Rajasthan High Court Private Doctor’s Widow Eligible for COVID Insurance if Duty Proven: Supreme Court Rebukes Narrow Interpretation of COVID-Era Orders Smaller Benches Cannot Override Constitution Bench Authority Under The Guise Of Clarification: Supreme Court Criticises Judicial Indiscipline Public Premises Act, 1971 | PP Act Overrides State Rent Control Laws for All Tenancies; Suhas Pophale Overruled: Supreme Court Court Has No Power To Reduce Sentence Below Statutory Minimum Under NDPS Act: Supreme Court Denies Relief To Young Mother Convicted With 23.5 kg Ganja Non-Compliance With Section 52-A Is Not Per Se Fatal: Supreme Court Clarifies Law On Sampling Procedure Under NDPS Act MBA Degree Doesn’t Feed the Stomach: Delhi High Court Says Wife’s Qualification No Ground to Deny Maintenance

Official Secrets Act Doesn't Prohibit Police Station Videotaping- Bombay HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Police stations are not particularly mentioned as one of the places or businesses that fall under the definition of a banned place in section 2(8) of the Official Secrets Act, according to the Bombay High Court.

The motion filed seeking the quashing of FIR pending before the Competent Court in response to filing of charge-sheet in the matter was being handled by the justices Manish Pitale and Valmiki SA Menezes.

In this instance, the complainant is a police officer who claims that while some hearings were taking place in the police station, the applicant secretly videotaped the proceedings on his mobile, breaking the Official Secrets Act of 1923 and committing an offence.

An offence punishable under Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act of 1923 has been levelled against the petitioner.

The High Court noted that the Official Secrets Act's definition of a "prohibited place" in section 2(8) is pertinent. It is a thorough definition, however it does not clearly list the police station as one of the locations or businesses that can fall under the category of "prohibited place." The applicant does not meet any of the requirements for the alleged offence. The bench concluded that the applicant does not meet any of the requirements for the claimed offence. As a result, this would be a suitable situation to approve the application.

Ravindra Shitalrao Upadyay

vs

State of Maharashtra

Download Order

[gview file="http://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2.pdf"]

 

Latest Legal News