[2] Clinical trials in india available at http://www.igatecorp. com/icri/html/aboutus/tia.htm (last visited 22nd October10th 2008).
[3] Gevers S , “Medical Research Involving Human Subjects: Towards an International Legal Framework’’ European Journal of Health Law pp 8:293-298 (2001).
[8]Berkman ND, Wynia MK, Churchill LR. Gaps, conflicts, and consensus in the ethics statements of professional associations,medicalgroups, andhealthplans. JMedEthics
[14] The convention of Human Rights and Biomedicine under article 17 (1997 )
Citation
[1]141 S. Ct. 1183 (2021), https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf (last visited May 21, 7:08PM).
[2]https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-google-llc-v-oracle-am-inc(last visited May 21, 6:08PM).
[3]https://www.intepat.com/blog/copyright/copyright-infringement-case-google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc/;Tadhg A.J. Dooley &David Roth, Supreme Court Update: Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. (No.18-956), Volume XII Issue 172, The National Law Review, June 21, 2022, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/supreme-court-update-google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc-no18-956(last visited May 21, 6:08PM).
[4]Jeffrey W. Gluck, Oracle v. Google, the never ending case finally ends, Panitch Intellectual Property Law Schwarze, April 21 at 3:09PM, https://www.panitchlaw.com/oracle-v-google-the-never-ending-case-finally-ends/;Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 135 Harv. L. Rev. 431, Nov. 10, 2021, https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/11/google-llc-v-oracle-america-inc/ (Last visited April 23 at 4:00PM).
[5]https://www.oyez.org/cases/2020/18-956 (last visited June 21, 6:08PM).
[6]James A.D. White, Misuse or fair use: that is the software copyright question, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1997), Berkeley Technology LawJournal, 251-310, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24122386?seq=22 (last visited June 12, 7:08PM).
[11] Kunvar Bharat Singh, Doctrine of Indoor Management and exceptions to this rule, Legal Service India (June 21, 2022, 09:12 P.M.) https://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l203-Indoor-Management.html
[12] Pearl Narang, Memorandum of Association : Know everything about it, Companies Act 2013, iPleaders blog (June 2022, 06:22 P.M.) https://blog.ipleaders.in/memorandum-of-association-2/
[1] N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, CBI, Writ Petition No.10509 Of 2019
[2] Indian Penal Code, 1860, §120B- Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy
[3] In this case, the appellant was charged under Section 302, and several other provisions, along with six other accused, who were acquitted. The case pertained to the murder of an ‘X’ at the doorstep of Y’s house. The case was first tried at the Trial Court, wherein the Court acquitted the Appellant for the want of evidence, in light of contradictory claims made by the Eye-witnesses presented by the Prosecution. This decision was overturned at the High Court, and the Appellant then challenged the order under the Supreme Court. The Apex Court held that the discrepancies in the claims of the eye-witness were not something minor, and had to be taken into account. When viewed with the non-Examination of a material witness (Y), turned to be fatal to the prosecution’s case. Thus, the Court gave the Appellant the benefit of the doubt and reversed the High Court order.
Prabhat Bhai Narayan Wagh & Ors v. State Of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 72 of 2008, ¶10
[4] In this case the Court explained that withholding the statement of a material witness leads to a dent in establishing the case against the accused. If this is done without any convincing explanation, it draws an adverse inference on the prosecution’s case. The Court also held that an Injured witness is given more credibility than an ordinary witness[4].
Mahak Chand And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal, 1122 of 1993, ¶64.
[5] In the Hari Sao case, the accused was charged with cheating wherein he represented that X number of bags were present at the time of loading onto the train, however, later only a reduced number of bags were delivered. The Trial and the High Court found the accused guilty of the said offense. Their decision was, however, overturned by the Supreme Court, stating that the false representation made by the accused did not lead to an extra burden on the other party (Railways), and they were unlikely to suffer any loss or damage. In such a scenario, no question of cheating the Railways could be inferred[5].
Hari Sao and Another v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 240(N) of 1966, ¶10
[6] In the latter case of Mohd. Ibrahim, the Court while assessing the ingredients of Cheating held that the act or omission must cause or be likely to cause damage or harm to the person, either in body, mind, or property. The Court reiterated the principle laid in the case of Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration [1963 AIR 1572] that defrauding someone had two elements, namely- deceit and injury. Injury is not merely any pecuniary loss but refers to the harm caused to one’s mind, body, reputation, or such others[6].
Mohd. Ibrahim and Another v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 1695 of 2009, ¶13, ¶15
[8] In the Samsul case, the court upheld the principle of Audi Alteram Partem, giving the accused the right to defend himself. It stated that those circumstances that are not placed before the accused during his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, must be removed from consideration. The Court reiterated the principle established in Asraf Ali v State of Assam [Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2001].
Samsul Haque v. State of Assam, Criminal Appeal 1905 of 2009, ¶13, ¶22.
[10] The Courts in several decisions like Ganga Kumar v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal 1186 of 1999] and Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab [1977 AIR 472] has held that the authority of the Court vide Article 136, for criminal cases, does not extend to interfering with the fact-findings of any case. The same is allowed only in Special Circumstances when the facts ascertained by the lower courts lead to gross injustice.
[11] In the case of N.V. Subbarao v. State, the accused was the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, and was charged under Section 420 of the IPC, among others, for defrauding the Bank. The Court, inter alia, noted that even though the accused claims all the transactions to be genuine, it is his burden to establish that all the conditions were met satisfactorily. He, being the custodian of the Bank, has to shoulder the entire responsibility.
N.V. Subbarao v. State, Criminal Appeal No. 1688 of 2008, ¶15
[12] In this case, the accused being acquainted with the practices of the Bank, was held guilty. The Court also viewed the conduct of the accused as a series of events, rather than viewing the misconduct in isolation. While substantiating Section 405 of the IPC, the Court laid that the section is attracted even when one allows somebody else to misappropriate the property entrusted to him. The section applies in both a negative and positive case, in a negative manner it relates to using dishonesty to dispose of the property. The positive case includes the misappropriation or conversion of property.
Vinayak Narayan Deosthali v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal 346 of 2004, ¶361
[13] The accused in this case, was the Chairman-cum-Chief Executive Officer (CCEO) of Noida and was charged with abuse of power, vide Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court held that the charge of Criminal Misconduct would be attracted when the accused obtains anything valuable or of monetary advantage by corrupt practices. The Court also held that such a gain can be in the favour of the accused or any other person in his relation. The Court reiterated that when an office-bearer acts in Flagrant violation of norms to uphold his interests, bypassing the public need, he has abused his power as an official.
Neera Yadav v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Appeal 253 of 2017, ¶ 49
[14] N. Raghavender v. State of Andhra Pradesh, writ petition 10509 of 2019, ¶37
[16] The Appellant was a dealer at a Fair-Price Shop, and was required to distribute free rice under the Food for Work Scheme, and maintain the accounts of the rice distributed. In the year 2002, a complaint was filed regarding the irregular supply of rice, that is, an essential commodity. On inspection, the officials could not get true records/accounts from the Appellant. It was recorded through evidence that the Appellant could not explain the correct accounts, and that he distributed the grains against the express statutory orders. The Court also recognised that the Appellant was ‘entrusted’ with the essential commodities. The Court found the Appellant guilty under Section 409, claiming that no leniency or sympathy could be shown, especially when the property entrusted, was essential commodities.
Sadhupati Nageswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 2012, ¶9, ¶11
[17] Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 406- Punishment for criminal breach of trust