| Author | Message | ||
Inquisitive Comedian Username: Inquisitive Post Number: 1971 Registered: 09-2014 Posted From: 72.201.206.251 Rating: N/A |
 Pedda legal expert laaga cheppavu...burden of proof ante nee understanding ida? Comedy ga undi. Case file chese time lo alleged disproportionate assets ni identify chesi list cheyyakapothe asalu chargesheet kooda accept avvadu! Nuvvu cheppinattu undi unte Babu every year ichche list lo unna assets tho nuclear deal lo Center ki against ga vote vesinappude case pettevaallu... The way burden of proof works is that if assets are identified and listed in the chargesheet, the burden of proving that those assets (no need to list other accounts as stated by you) are legitimate lies on the defendant. "Sakshi is a most balanced and independent media. This has no affiliation with any political party," Jagan had said. Link: http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/sakshi-retelecasts- story-omits-antisonia-remarks/701963 | ||
Lichtenberg Comedian Username: Lichtenberg Post Number: 1925 Registered: 08-2013 Posted From: 76.184.139.27 Rating: N/A |
Disproportionate Assets clause in the PCA reverses the burden of proof on defendant....ilaanti comedy laws chaalaa unnaayi...idi politicians ni harass cheyyadaaniki use chesthaaru....they tried on Maya, Mulayam......middle lo drop chesaaru tomorrow if they file DA case on CBN, it is presumed he hsa DA and he has to show all accounts & prove innocence(as he has not inherited much wealth, it is more burdensome for him compared to say NBK) | ||
Teenmaar Side Hero Username: Teenmaar Post Number: 2337 Registered: 02-2011 Posted From: 96.31.62.171 Rating: N/A |
Means our genetics are still close to the species we evolved from | ||
Inquisitive Comedian Username: Inquisitive Post Number: 1968 Registered: 09-2014 Posted From: 72.201.206.251 Rating: |
Evolutionarily backwards ante ento Google lo kooda dorakaledu. Please clarify. "Sakshi is a most balanced and independent media. This has no affiliation with any political party," Jagan had said. Link: http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/sakshi-retelecasts- story-omits-antisonia-remarks/701963 | ||
Teenmaar Side Hero Username: Teenmaar Post Number: 2336 Registered: 02-2011 Posted From: 70.198.141.171 Rating: N/A |
Reason why? Because Indians are evolutionarily backwards | ||
Inquisitive Comedian Username: Inquisitive Post Number: 1967 Registered: 09-2014 Posted From: 72.201.206.251 Rating: |
1. The trial in their case happened before the SC ruled that trial must be completed within one year of framing of charges (against MPs or MLAs) or the concerned trial court judge must furnish a written explanation to HC for the delay. I think this is why Jaggus trial is on a weekly basis. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Finish-trial-agains t-MPs-and-MLAs-in-one-year-Supreme-Court-orders/articleshow/ 31802285.cms 2. Since Jaya was the sitting CM when trial began, it was hard to have an unbiased trial in TN. So the SC had to intervene and do something unprecedented - move the case to Karnataka. This caused a lot of delay as there was no precedent. 3. Since they were convicted only in one case, that too for a small term (much less than 7 years), they got bail for the duration of appeal hearing. If A1 and A2 weren't old women or if the sentences were for a longer term or conviction was in multiple cases they may have been in jail during the appeal process in HC and the case wouldn't have seemed so long. In fact, they usually expedite the appeal when the appellant is in jail. "Sakshi is a most balanced and independent media. This has no affiliation with any political party," Jagan had said. Link: http://www.outlookindia.com/news/article/sakshi-retelecasts- story-omits-antisonia-remarks/701963 |
