The Высокий Суд в Бомбае прекратил дело по обвинению лица в содействии в оскорблении через социальные сети, так как disposição relève здесь на статью 19(1)(a) Конституции.
FIR No. 3093/14 and chargesheet II-12/2014 were quashed and set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cri. Appln. No. 236/15
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 236 OF 2015
Pundlik s/o. Sahebrao Jangle
....Applicant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ....Respondents.
Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for applicant. Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for State. Mr. S.S. Panale, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE & SMT. I.K. JAIN, JJ. DATED : 30th March, 2015.
ORDER :
Cri. Appln. No. 236/15
2
photographs of some political leaders including the photograph of leader of political party, B.J.P. and the photograph of founder of political party, Shivsena. The conduct of the political party, Shivsena was ridiculed by showing that they were virtually begging for getting some seats from the other party, B.J.P. in General Election of State Legislative Assembly. There was writing to the effect that due to such conduct, the political party, Shivsena was destroying its image and it was letting down Marathi people.
Cri. Appln. No. 236/15
3
on recently decided case of Supreme Court bearing Writ Petition No. 167/2012 and others between Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of Inida dated 24.3.2015. The Apex Court has struck down section 66-A of I.T. Act by holding that the provision is unconstitutional under Article 19 (1) (a) and not saved by Article 19 (2) of the Constitution of India. In view of these circumstances, this Court holds that nothing can be achieved by allowing the State to prosecute the matter against the present applicant.
[ SMT. I.K. JAIN, J. ] [ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the provision under section 66-A of Information Technology Act, 2008 is applicable to the present proceedings.
Whether the Constitutional validity of section 66-A of Information Technology Act, 2008 determines the quashing of the FIR as per the judgment in Shreya Singhal.
Whether the FIR and chargesheet filed under section 66-A of IT Act of 2008 should be quashed in the light of the judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of IndiaFollowed¶19
Writ Petition No. 167/2012 and others between Shreya Singhal Vs. Union of Inida dated 24.3.2015
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pundlik s/o. Sahebrao Jangle
The State of Maharashtra
Respondent No. 2
T.V. NALAWADE
I.K. JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
