Abhishek Angad

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Amit Arora said there were certain lacunae in the case, which the prosecution failed to explain, leading to acquittal of the accused.

Ever since they heard the news, Sangeeta’s 54-year-old husband and 15-year-old daughter have sat huddled in their one-room house, unable to get over the shock of her sudden death.

A case of rape was registered in May this year at Ashok Vihar police station after the woman alleged that the accused had “used and abused” her for over two years on the pretext of marriage.

The ED claimed that the ASCPL received Rs 26 lakh as consultancy fee, days after the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) granted approval for Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in the Aircel-Maxis deal in 2006 when Karti’s father P Chidambaram was Union Finance Minister.

The High Court said that those flouting the guidelines will be disqualified and penalised under The Delhi Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 2007, as well as Metro Rail (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002, as there have been instances of spray paint being used on the Metro premises to write slogans near university campuses.

During trial, the victim admitted that she does not have a birth certificate issued by the MCD. “The date of birth in her school (records), as written by her mother, is 1998. She stated that her mother had not submitted any documents, such as a birth certificate, to her school,” said the records.

It added that there were various inconsistencies in the statements of police personnel regarding the time, clothing worn by different police officers, “writing work” done by the IO of the case among others.

The judge observed that Salem indulged in extending threats and extortion, and had previously been involved in several cases. "Therefore, he deserves severe punishment of such a magnitude that the same should be a lesson for the convict and an alarming lesson for others,” judge said

The Delhi Police had filed a chargesheet in 2010 and mentioned that the death was caused due to rash and negligent act of the two accused persons — the president and the secretary — as they failed to properly maintain the electric pole.

"I would like to reiterate my position that I find charges preposterous and baseless, the product of a malicious and vindictive campaign against myself. I will continue to vigorously contest these charges...” Shashi Tharoor said.

According to the charge sheet on January 22, 2011 a trap was laid at Bemina bypass chowk, Srinagar where the police seized hawala money of Rs 20 lakh from Bhat, Rs 10,000 from Liloo and Dagga and one lakh from Ganai.

The chargesheet filed before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Samar Vishal under IPC sections 188, 145 and 149 states that the crowd was involved in “unlawful assembly and continued to protest”.

The observation came while an Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) acquitted a Congress candidate, made an accused under IPC Section 188 for undertaking a political rally on November 29, 2013 in Moti Nagar.

The bail application of the accused was transferred to another court two days before the day marked for its disposal.

Stating that it was “improper” to take cognizance of a chargesheet filed under IPC Section 500 (defamation) without examining the complainant first, ACMM Samar Vishal pulled up a metropolitan magistrate and the Delhi Police.

P Chidambaram filed a plea in the court of Special Judge O P Saini in connection with summons in the Aircel-Maxis case. The court granted him interim protection from arrest and ordered the ED not to take any coercive action against him until June 5.

Kejriwal had approached the court for directions to police for supply of a copy of CD and statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC on May 18.

Gadkari slapped a criminal defamation case against Singh in 2012 for accusing him of having business links with his party MP Ajay Sancheti. Singh had made statements that Sancheti was Gadkari’s business partner and had earned profit of around Rs 500 crore in coal block allocation.

The court said the site plan made by police did not show a dedicated pedestrian crossing