| Author | Message | ||
Man_of_masses Legend Username: Man_of_masses Post Number: 38787 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 174.60.182.232 Rating: N/A |
 Success Doesn't Guarantee Happiness.. http://i42.tinypic.com/54g1g2.png | ||
Starbucks Side Hero Username: Starbucks Post Number: 3682 Registered: 08-2011 Posted From: 210.239.48.141 Rating: N/A |
Thanks bro streets of Tokyo's Tsukishima district 10 mins maa office nundi.. ee weekend try chesthaa Bhimavaram | Singapore | Tokyo | ||
Man_of_masses Legend Username: Man_of_masses Post Number: 38785 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 174.60.182.232 Rating: N/A |
yeah, tokyo http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/rest-of-world/Giant -tortoise-walks-Tokyos-streets-slowly/articleshow/47627905.c ms?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign= TOI Success Doesn't Guarantee Happiness.. http://i42.tinypic.com/54g1g2.png | ||
Starbucks Side Hero Username: Starbucks Post Number: 3681 Registered: 08-2011 Posted From: 210.239.48.141 Rating: N/A |
Tokyo na? place emaina undaa.. ekkado choosina streets laage unnayi... Bhimavaram | Singapore | Tokyo | ||
Man_of_masses Legend Username: Man_of_masses Post Number: 38784 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 174.60.182.232 Rating: N/A |
annai.. indaa mee veedullo anta https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/1 1392944_10153408843467139_6454079091333539825_n.jpg?oh=d40ef 3eb6e720912cec7e20993f461f3&oe=55FEBAA2 https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/1 1235386_10153408848722139_1783887269968677227_n.jpg?oh=4b963 4b768ddda1de992a1466c82fb90&oe=55EBB458 https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/1 1390213_10153408848767139_1358294273977382497_n.jpg?oh=ae620 0868e93e5bef733397683c998cb&oe=55F8F4BB Success Doesn't Guarantee Happiness.. http://i42.tinypic.com/54g1g2.png | ||
Starbucks Side Hero Username: Starbucks Post Number: 3679 Registered: 08-2011 Posted From: 210.239.48.141 Rating: |
ee spamming enti thalloi... akka mana bujji gaadu jump anta... adhi soodu Bhimavaram | Singapore | Tokyo | ||
Bluelagoon Side Hero Username: Bluelagoon Post Number: 2195 Registered: 12-2013 Posted From: 49.207.247.0 Rating: N/A |
Genuine evidence procured by illegal means is admissible: SC Press Trust of India | New Delhi September 6, 2013 Last Updated at 19:36 IST The Supreme Court today held that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs is admissible in law although such methods was not the procedure established by law "It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained," a bench headed by Justice B S Chauhan said. ADVERTISING The bench, however, said that before accepting such evidence, the court must come to the conclusion that the evidence is genuine and free from tampering. "However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation," it said. "This court repelled the contention that obtaining evidence illegally by using tape recordings or photographs offend Articles 20(3) and 21(Protection of life and liberty) of the Constitution of India as acquiring the evidence by such methods was not the procedure established by law," the bench said. The court passed the order while directing CBI to conduct a probe against Andhra Pradesh DGP accused of amassing disproportionate assets and pulled up the state government for refusing to investigate the case on the ground that the complaint against the state's top police official was forged. The apex court held although the complaint was forged the documents annexed with it shows property details of the top cop, which must be looked into. NIPPU NAGARAJA fans SC court judgement in sep 2013 enjoy enjoy}} | ||
Banam Side Hero Username: Banam Post Number: 9883 Registered: 12-2011 Posted From: 108.198.228.138 Rating: N/A |
BHARATHI akka - Nee yankamma ponuko ehe... Morning 6 ayyindhi...repo mapo Meeru kooda TDP loki jump ayithe enti parisththi ani alochistunna...  Green Bay Packers!! | ||
Bluelagoon Side Hero Username: Bluelagoon Post Number: 2189 Registered: 12-2013 Posted From: 49.207.247.0 Rating: |
ADMISSIBILITY OF TAPED CONVERSATIONS AS EVIDENCE Controversial Judgment in the Malkani Case The case of R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra[xi] revolved around the question of whether criminal prosecution could be initiated against a person on the basis of certain incriminating portions of a telephone conversation that he had with another individual. In the case, the Appellant was the Coroner of Mumbai and was trying to obtain illegal gratification of Rs. 15,000 from an honest doctor from whom he planned to implicate in a case involving the negligent death of a patient. This doctor was not interested in paying the bribe and instead contacted the Anti-Corruption Bureau of the Police. The doctor then, on the directions of the police officials, proceeded to have a phone conversation with the Appellant where they discussed the amount of money to be paid, and also the place of delivery, etc. This conversation was recorded without the knowledge of Malkani and charges were filed against him on the basis of the incriminating statements that he had made. The Supreme Court held that having another person listening in on a conversation was a mechanical process and that there was no element of compulsion or coercion involved which would have otherwise violated the Act. With regards to the admissibility issue, the Court appreciated the method, terming it a mechanical eavesdropping device�. However, then perhaps realizing that it was wrong, it hastily added that -it should be used sparingly, under proper direction and with circumspection. The tape-recorded evidence was compared with a photograph of a relevant incident and based on this assumption it was decided that Sections 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act [1872] would not bar the admission of improperly obtained evidence. Hence, what the Apex Court did was to hold that illegally obtained evidence would be admitted in Court since the eavesdropper neither subjects the person to duress nor interferes with his privacy. Following the dictum laid down in the Malkani case many judgments have been passed by the Courts accepting illegally obtained evidence for the purposes of conviction. In the case of S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab[xiii], the Supreme Court allowed the tape record of a telephonic conversation between the Chief Minister�s wife and a doctor to be admitted as evidence to corroborate the evidence of witnesses who had stated that such a conversation had taken place Further, in Yusufalli Esmail Nagree v. State of Maharashtra[xiv], a conversation that was recorded by means of a tape recorder placed in a room was admitted in evidence. In the case, the Appellant Nagree had offered a bribe to a municipal clerk Munir Ahmed Sheikh. The clerk Sheikh informed the police who then laid a trap at his residence by concealing a voice recording apparatus in the room where the bribe amount was to be paid. Then, this tape was allowed as evidence by the Court to corroborate the Sheikh�s testimony. The Court noted that if a photograph taken without the knowledge of the person being photographed, applying the same principle to the case of a tape-record of a conversation that is unnoticed by the talkers, will also become relevant and admissible. The Apex Court in delivering the judgment was heavily influenced by the decision of an English Court in the case of R v. Maqsud Ali[xv]. In that case two persons suspected of murder went voluntarily with the Police Officers into a room whereunknown to them, there was a microphone connected with a tape recorder in another room. Thereafter, when they were left alone, the accused persons had a conversation during which some incriminating remarks were made. The Court decided that the tape-recording of the incriminating evidence had to be admitted as evidence. In N. Sri Rama Reddy v. V.V.Giri[xvi], better known as the âPresidential Election caseâ the Petitioner had alleged that a certain Jagat Narain had tried to dissuade him from contesting the election. Then, their tape-recorded telephone conversation was then produced in Court to disprove Narainâs claims that the incident never took place. Here the Court utilized the conversation to show that a âwitness might be contradicted when he denies any question tending to impeach his impartialityâ [Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act] and thus observed that the tape itself would become the primary and direct evidence.} NIPPPPU NAGA RAJA NIPPU NAGA RAJA } |
