Top Stories”Accused Was A Juvenile At The Time Of Occurrence”: SC Quashes Life Sentence In A Four Decade Old Murder Case [Read Judgment] Ashok Kini7 Oct 2020 11:28 PMShare This – xThe Supreme Court has set aside the life imprisonment sentence imposed on a person accused in a 1981 murder case noticing that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence.The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, though upheld the conviction, directed the Juvenile Justice Board to pass orders regarding detention and custody under…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court has set aside the life imprisonment sentence imposed on a person accused in a 1981 murder case noticing that he was less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence.The bench comprising Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv Khanna, though upheld the conviction, directed the Juvenile Justice Board to pass orders regarding detention and custody under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 Act.Satya Deo and two others were convicted by the Trial Court and were sentenced to life imprisonment (on 11.12.1981). The Allahabad High court dismissed their appeal, about 36 years later on 20.04.2018. [They served two years imprisonment before the HC granted them bail]. The Trio were accused of killing one Vimla Saran.The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions filed by co-accused against Allahabad High Court judgment, but issued notice in the case of Satya Deo on the plea of juvenility. The Trial court was directed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain if Satya Deo was a juvenile on the date of occurrence i.e. 11.12.1981. The report filed before the Apex Court stated that he was 16 years 7 months and 26 days of age on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 11.12.1981. However, the report concluded that he was not a juvenile as per the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 as he was more than 16 year of age on the date of commission of the offence i.e. 11.12.1981.In this case, three laws are involved. One is Juvenile Justice Act, 1986, Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, and Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act of 2015. ‘Juvenile’ under the 1986 Act, was defined as a person below sixteen years in case of a boy and below eighteen years in case of a girl on the date the boy or girl is brought for first appearance before the court or the competent authority. The 2000 Act did not distinguish between a boy or girl and a person under the age of eighteen years is a juvenile. Further, under the 2000 Act, the age on the date of commission of the offence is the determining factor.In Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, the Constitution Bench held that the 2000 Act would be applicable in a pending proceeding instituted under the 1986 Act in any court or authority, if the person had not completed eighteen years of age as on 1st April 2001, when the 2000 Act came into force. It was also held that the reckoning date for the determination of the age of the juvenile is the date of the offence and not the date when he is produced before the authority or in a court. The 2000 Act would have prospective effect and not retrospective effect except in cases where the person had not completed the age of eighteen years on the date of commencement of the 2000 Act. Other pending cases would be governed by the provisions of the 1986 Act. A subsequent amendment to 2000 Act made it clear that in all cases where a juvenile in conflict with law is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment on the date of commencement of the 2000 Act, the juvenile’s case including the issue of juvenility, shall be deemed to be decided in terms of clause (l) to Section 2 and other provisions and rules made under the 2000 Act irrespective of the fact that the juvenile had ceased to be a juvenile.Taking note of this legal provisions, the bench observed:This court at this stage can decide and determine the question of juvenility of Satya Deo, notwithstanding the fact that Satya Deo was not entitled to the benefit of being a juvenile on the date of the offence, under the 1986 Act, and had turned an adult when the 2000 Act was enforced. As Satya Deo was less than 18 years of age on the date of commission of offence on 11.12.1981, he is entitled to be treated as a juvenile and be given benefit as per the 2000 Act.The court also noted that, in terms of Section 25 of the 2015 Act, 2000 Act would continue to apply and govern the proceedings which were pending when the 2015 Act was enforced. Allowing the appeal, the bench said:We uphold the conviction of Satya Deo, we would set aside the sentence of life imprisonment. We would remit the matter to the jurisdiction of the Board for passing appropriate order/directions under Section 15 of the 2000 Act including the question of determination and payment of appropriate quantum of fine and the compensation to be awarded to the family of the deceased. We make no affirmative or negative comments either way on the order/direction under Section 15 of the 2000 Act. 22. We would, accordingly, direct the jail authorities to produce Satya Deo before the Board within seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Board shall then pass appropriate order regarding detention and custody and proceed thereafter to pass order/directions under the 2000 Act. . Case no.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 860 OF 2019 Case name: SATYA DEO @ BHOOREY vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHCoram: Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Sanjiv KhannaClick here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentNext Story
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Financial Times:Between January 2014 and September 2017 international banks channeled $630bn to the top 120 companies planning to build new coal plants around the world.The researchers highlighted Beijing-based Industrial and Commercial Bank of China as the biggest underwriter for bond and share issues of coal plant developers, providing more than $33bn over that period.The researchers also found that nine western banks increased their financing of coal plant developers in 2016: Citi, UBS, Barclays, Société Générale, BNP Paribas, ING, JPMorgan, Standard Chartered and Crédit Agricole.The campaign groups said the figures were startling against the backdrop of the two-year anniversary of the Paris accord, where 195 countries agreed to fight global warming.The top two lenders to coal plant developers since January 2014 were Japanese banks Mizuho Financial and Mitsubishi UFJ Financial, providing $11.5bn and $10.2bn respectively.The figures will raise questions over the seriousness of banks’ public claims to want to help tackle climate change. Many have vowed to help reduce global warming by supporting green financing initiatives.More: Banks criticised for funding coal deals despite Paris agreement International Banks Continue to Back Coal Projects, Contrary to Policy Commitments
continue reading » In late October the National Credit Union Administration finalized changes to part 701 its rules and regulations that broaden field of membership definitions for federally insured credit unions. The agency announced that, as a result, more Americans will become eligible for credit union products and services effective Feb. 6, 2017.The change had the added benefit of re-naming NCUA’s consumer office to clarify its function and role in promoting consumer access to affordable financial services. NCUA Acting Chairman and prior Board Member J. Mark McWatters noted that the change would enhance consumer access to credit by sensibly and reasonably updating NCUA’s rules.” He further noted that the “… field-of-membership final rule is consistent with both the letter and spirit of the law.”The shift was one of the biggest regulatory moves for credit unions of 2016. Banks and other large financial institutions see it as a threat because it could have a substantial positive impact on credit union membership growth. Opponents of the change have threatened lawsuits challenging credit unions’ not-for-profit status. 12SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr
Loughlin and Giannulli, face multiple federal fraud, money laundering and bribery charges. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Nathaniel Gorton, who is overseeing the nation’s college admissions scandal in which actress Lori Loughlin is involved in, called the allegations of law enforcement misconduct “serious and disturbing.”14 parents, including Loughlin and her fashion designer husband Mossimo Giannulli, are seeking dismissal of the case because of the alleged misconduct.William ‘Rick’ Singer, the mastermind of the scheme, was cooperating with the FBI. Singer wrote that the agents told him to lie and get his clients to restate they were making bribes to college officials.“The Court considers the allegations in Singer’s October notes to be serious and disturbing,” Gorton wrote. “While government agents are permitted to coach cooperating witnesses during the course of an investigation, they are not permitted to suborn the commission of a crime.”Singer also wrote that FBI officials wanted him to not restate what he actually told his clients and that is that they were making a payment to an athletic program, not a college coach.Defense attorneys say this served as evidence that their clients’ are innocent. That the parents thought they were making legitimate donations, not bribing college officials. The defense says the government “knowingly withheld” the evidence, which was not turned over until February. Actress Lori Loughlin Accuses Prosecutors of Withholding Exculpatory Evidence Judge Gorton did not decide if he was going to dismiss the case. Gorton ordered prosecutors to provide more information and respond to the allegations. The defendants have until May 1 to respond to the government.
Facebook0Tweet0Pin0Submitted by Washington Center for the Performing ArtsKoresh Dance Company scheduled to perform on March 28 at the Washington Center for the Performing Arts has been postponed to a future date that will be announced as soon as the new performance date is confirmed. Executive Director Jill Barnes announced, “We are working to find a mutually agreeable date for the fall of 2020.”The Washington Center will be keeping our community informed as quickly as possible regarding show cancellations due to COVID-19 and Governor Inslee’s mandate for immediate prohibition around public gatherings and events. Ticket holders will be emailed directly with show specific details. We are doing all we can to support the arts community, valued patrons, volunteers and employees.Please visit our website for daily performance and event updates www.washingtoncenter.org or call the Box Office at 360-753-8586.