Legal Reference Library

Supreme Court in Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs State of Haryana, has observed that while adding or altering a charge under Section 216 CrPC, the trial court has to keep in view, the test of prejudice to the accused. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said that it is the duty of the trial court to bear in mind that no prejudice is caused to the accused as that has the potentiality to affect a fair trial. Background In this case, the Magistrate had allowed an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a-wife for framing an additional charge under Section 406 IPC, holding that prima facie case for criminal breach of trust was made out. This order was assailed in revision and the Revisional court partly allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order of framing of charge against the mother-in-law. The said order was upheld by the High Court. The husband then approached the Apex Court. Test of Prejudice Referring...

Supreme Court in Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs State of Haryana, has observed that while adding or altering a charge under Section 216 CrPC, the trial court has to keep in view, the test of prejudice to the accused. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh said that it is the duty of the trial court to bear in mind that no prejudice is caused to the accused as that has the potentiality to affect a fair trial. Background In this case, the Magistrate had allowed an application under Section 216 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a-wife for framing an additional charge under Section 406 IPC, holding that prima facie case for criminal breach of trust was made out. This order was assailed in revision and the Revisional court partly allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order of framing of charge against the mother-in-law. The said order was upheld by the High Court. The husband then approached the Apex Court. Test of Prejudice Referring...

The Bombay High Court last week ruled that expenses incurred by a professional going abroad for treatment of eye is not eligible for income tax deduction. The assessee in this case, Dhimant Thakar vs CIT, was a lawyer and he argued that good vision was important for pursuing his profession. His claim for the assessment year 1986-87 was rejected by the revenue authorities. His appeal was also rejected by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who observed that if the logic of the lawyer was stretched, it would mean that even expenditure incurred on food to preserve oneself should be treated as allowable under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act as being incurred for business or profession. On appeal, the high court upheld the view of the authorities observing that "eyes are essential not only for the purpose of business or profession but for purposes other than these which are so many. It is therefore clear that the said expenditure as claimed by the professional is not in th...