MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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