SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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