Advocate Vivek Nasa

  Understanding Section 411 IPC By Vivek Nasa Associates In the case of  Trimbak vs. State of M.P. AIR 1954 SC 39 , the Court clarified that to prove a charge under  Section 411 of the IPC , the prosecution must establish: The accused was in possession of stolen property. Someone else had possession of the property before the accused. The accused knew or had reason to believe the property was stolen. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove the accused knew the gold was stolen. The identity of the gold was also not confirmed, so it could not be classified as stolen property. Even if the accused received demand drafts and purchased gold bars, the prosecution needed to show the accused knew the drafts were obtained fraudulently or was part of a conspiracy. Vivek Nasa Associates Vivek Nasa Associates  is a trusted  criminal defense law firm in Gurugram , specializing in  bail , anticipatory bail , court representation, and trial defense . Our expert lawye...

  Waiver of Cooling-Off Period for  Mutual Consent Divorce in India   By Vivek Nasa Associates The concept of  mutual consent divorce  was introduced in India to provide an amicable and less adversarial way for couples to end their marriage when they find it irreparable. Under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 , and similar provisions in other personal laws, couples can file for divorce by mutual consent  if they have been living separately for at least one year and agree that the marriage cannot be sustained. However, one of the most debated aspects of this provision is the mandatory “cooling-off period” of six months between the first and second motions for divorce . This raises the question: Can the cooling-off period for mutual consent divorce in India be waived off? Understanding the Cooling-Off Period The cooling-off period is a statutory requirement designed to give couples time to reconsider their decision to divorce . It acts as a safegua...

It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court of India in Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat that, A subsequent complaint under section 420 IPC is admissible & not barred even if prior complaint under section 138 NI Act is pending or appeal thereto in pending adjudication. Supreme Court of India Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat ; Anr on 23 April, 2012 Author: . B Chauhan Bench: B.S. Chauhan, Jagdish Singh Khehar REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 645 of 2012 Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel …Appellant Versus State of Gujarat & Anr. …Respondents J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Misc. Application No. 7807 of 2006, by which the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the presen...

ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE RELATED TO ELECTRONIC RECORDS UNDER INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AND INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT WRITTEN BY: VIVEK NASA ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE / EVIDENCE RELATED TO ELECTRONIC RECORDS NOT ADMISSIBLE WITHOUT CERTIFICATE UNDER SECTION 65B(4) OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. ANY AUDIO/VIDEO RECORDING OF ANY CRIMINAL OFFENCE GIVEN TO POLICE ON CD/DVD/PEN DRIVE, NOT ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE PER SE . After implementation of Information Technology Act 2000 (as amended), amendments were made to other statues like Indian Penal code and Indian Evidence Act, to recognize offences/ criminal acts done, using computer systems (including electronic devices). Amendments were also introduced to Indian Evidence Act to recognize evidence collected using computer systems. Section 65A and 65B were added to recognize admissibility of evidence related to electronic records. Section 65A of Indian Evidence Act reads as under: “Section 65A: Special provisions as to evidence relating to el...