J.Pandiaraj v. State by
Case brief
What is this about?
A single-judge order directed the registry to correct a clerical error in a previous criminal appeal order regarding a missing word in a legal proposition and to re-host the corrected order on the official website.
What did the court decide?
Direction to the registry to correct an order, re-host it, and issue fresh certified copies free of charges.
What the court decided
Crl.A.No.299 of 2015
Crl.A.No.299 of 2015
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
This case is posted under the head "for being mentioned" though technically it
has been listed suo motu by the Court, after giving notice to both sides.
2.This case was disposed of by this Court on 08.11.2024 and it was cited before this Court by the same counsel who appeared for the appellant in another case. While taking the Court through Paragraph 6.7, this Court noted that in line 3, the word 'not' is missing, which is very significant in this context. This correction does not touch upon the merit of the case on facts, but it forms part of the statement on law, which this Court made in Paragraph 6.7.
3.Accordingly, the first sentence of Paragraph 6.7 of the order dated 08.11.2024 will read as below:
" 6.7 In cases, where the prosecution attempts to prove demand for bribe as an independent fact but through shaky evidence, it may not carry much weight if the reverse burden cast on the accused person is not adequately discharged. If however, if the accused person ..........................."
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
1/2
Coram
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court