New Delhi: Noted that a single judge’s reserve from Kerala HC was mistaken in the use of the defendant in the case under the law (prevention) acting as a revised petition submitted by him, which must be decided by two judges, the Supreme Court has set aside orders and referring Return to HC to be reconsidered.
Judge Judge Mr.
Shah and as Bopanna allowed the government’s request to argue that considering Part 21 (1) the Nia Law, the revised application of the commands passed by the Special Court alleged to give up the charges.
It has been heard by the division bench as mandated under paragraph (2) part 21 of the law.
Even the defendant agreed with the satisfaction of the state regarding the legal proposition that the problem should be examined by the HC division bench.
“In this case, recognized, the assessment and order that was revealed had been passed by a single judge who was studied which could be said to be completely contrary to the legal provisions, namely, Section 21 (1) and 21 (2) of the NIA Law and the Law was set By this court in the decision mentioned above.
Given the things above, all of these appeals are successful and the rating and order that is revealed which is usually passed by HC with this canceled, “Bench said.
“It is explained that we have not revealed anything about the reward that supports both parties and the general assessment that is derived from the High Court is set aside solely on the land mentioned above.
It does not need to be said that all the distinct / defenses that may be available to each party permanent Open to be considered by the division bench from the High Court in accordance with the law and with his own abilities, “he said.
HC ERred, said SC, UPA waste disposal was accused
