1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court allows appeal due to 11-year delay in naming appellant in prosecution; interim protection made absolute.</h1> The SC allowed the appeal concerning the delay in naming the appellant in the prosecution complaint, noting the eleven-year gap between the initial ECIR ... Grant of interim protection - HELD THAT:- ECIR was registered on 31.01.2011. The prosecution complaint was registered on 29.06.2018. The appellant was not named therein. But in the supplementary complaint filed on 23.12.2022, the appellant was named. During this entire period of eleven years, the appellant was not arrested - Appeal allowed - the interim protection granted to the appellant on 24.03.2023 is made absolute. Issues involved: Delay in naming the appellant in prosecution complaint and the grant of interim protection.For the issue of delay in naming the appellant in the prosecution complaint, the Supreme Court noted that the ECIR was registered on 31.01.2011, while the prosecution complaint was registered on 29.06.2018, with the appellant not being named initially. However, in the supplementary complaint filed on 23.12.2022, the appellant was named. Despite this delay of eleven years, the appellant was not arrested. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal.Regarding the grant of interim protection, the Court made the protection granted to the appellant on 24.03.2023 absolute. It was clarified that this protection applied to the appellant in his individual capacity and as an Authorized Representative of the Faith Cricket Club. However, the appellant was directed to appear before the trial court, and any pending application(s) were to be disposed of accordingly.