TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
