Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act is a special act & local law. Therefore, the powers u/s 451, 452 & 457 of CrPC (relating to custody & disposal of property) being general provisions are not invocable in respect of proceedings under the Act, observed #AllahabadHC
In the present case an F.I.R. (21.9.20) was registered where the vehicle stated to be carrying the animals was seized, in Ballia UP and proceedings were initiated.
Subsequently,Magistrate upon taking into
consideration the scheme of the Act, refused to release the vehicle
The counsel for the applicant contended in the HC that ,since the vehicle had
been confiscated, the courts below have committed an error in
rejecting the application for release, ignoring the powers
exercisable us 451 and 457 of the Code.
AGA
, to the contrary stated that the
proceedings have been initiated under the PCSA, which is a
Special Act, and provides a separate procedure with regard to
confiscation and seizure under s 5-A.
The PCSA is an Act to prevent the slaughter of cow and
its progeny in the State of UP. Sec 5-A of the Act
which is with regard to regulation on transport of cow, etc., and
is relevant for the purposes of the controversy involved in the
present case : #AllahabadHC
“Sec 5-A sub sec (11) would go to show that the scheme
of the Act provides a complete procedure with regard to
proceedings relating to confiscation and release,” noted Bench.
Bench further relied on sec 5 of CrPC ( saving clause) and as per
terms “thereof nothing contained in the Code shall, in the
absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any
special or local law for the time being in force...”
The normal rule of
interpretation that the special provision must prevail over the
general and if a case is covered by a special provision, the
general provision would not be attracted, would be applicable : #AllahabadHC
The vehicle in question having been confiscated
& seized in exercise of powers us 5-A of the
PCSA, which a special Act & a local law
us 5 of the Code, would clearly have the
effect of denuding the Magistrate of his power to pass any order under provisions of Crpc: Bench
Thus, the application u/s 482 of Crpc to release the vehicle during the pendency of proceedings under PCSA, was dismissed.
#MadrasHighCourt to continue hearing appeals challenging a single judge order of December 1 that permitted lighting of #KarthigaiDeepam atop an ancient pillar (#deepathoon) on #ThiruparankundramHill
Bench: Justices G Jayachandran and K K Ramakrishnan
Senior Advocate S Sriram (for Hindu devotee): The right to worship cannot be confined only to Article 25. It is also a facet of the right to expression under Article 19.
SupremeCourt to hear today a batch of pleas challenging the Election Commission’s Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar, Tamil Nadu, and West Bengal.
While the #BiharSIR case has been heard earlier (with polls now in the final phase), petitions over #TamilNaduSIR and #WestBengalSIR were filed recently.
In Tamil Nadu, the DMK (@arivalayam), CPI(M) (@cpimspeak), and a state MLA have moved the Supreme Court.
In West Bengal, petitions have been filed by TMC MP Dola Sen (@AITCofficial), Mala Roy and the WB Pradesh Congress Committee.
@arivalayam @cpimspeak @AITCofficial J. Surya Kant: Let’s take up the SIR fresh matters first.
Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appears for Election Commission of India.
Dwivedi: We have not been issued notice in the West Bengal and Tamil Nadu pleas.
Supreme Court hearing a plea by cartoonist Hemant Malviya, accused of drawing a caricature showing the Rashtriya Swayam Sewak (RSS) and Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi in an undignified manner.
Bench: Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria
On the last hearing, the Court had directed cartoonist Hemant Malviya to publish an apology on social media, barred reposting of caricature, and said deletion of the original content was not allowed during ongoing investigation.
Advocate Vrinda Grover appears for Malviya and ASG KM Nataraj appears for the State of Madhya Pradesh.
Grover for Malviya informs the Bench that apology has been published on social media.
Delhi High Court to hear today Centre’s objection to the maintainability of a plea filed by banned organisation Popular Front of India (PFI) challenging the UAPA Tribunal’s order upholding the five-year ban imposed by the Central Government.
The matter is listed before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela.
Counsel for PFI: May I be permitted to hand over a note of the arguments that I have prepared?
Supreme Court to shortly hear YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahabadia aka 'BeerBiceps' plea over multiple FIRs filed against him for controversial remarks on the YouTube show 'India's Got Latent'.
Court had earlier in February granted interim relief to Allahabadia.
🗳️ One Nation, One Election — the big debate unfolds at Delhi High Court today!
Union Ministers, senior jurists & legal minds come together to discuss the future of India’s democracy. 🇮🇳⚖️
#OneNationOneElection
@byadavbjp @arjunrammeghwal @HiteshJ1973
Lawbeat’s @SukritiMishra12 with insights
Hitesh Jain, Member Law Commission of India: The simultaneous election (also known as One Nation One Election) is not a debate that has started recently. Why it matters today?…Everybody is aware of the cost that goes in, for each election. For the fairness of elections; the opposition parties should welcome this, instead of opposing it. Parties get a level playing field.