vide Chassis
No.MD2A36FY8KCH54287 and Engine No.JLYCKH25385 and phone
POCO M2 PRO – Green and Greener seized by the respondent police in Crime ... vide Chassis
No.MD2A36FY8KCH54287 and Engine No.JLYCKH25385 and phone
POCO M2 PRO – Green and Greener seized by the respondent police in Crime
Magistrate, Thottiyam and set aside the same and
grant interim custody for POCO F4 5G (Night Black) 128GB IMEI
No.869785060828122 and IMEI ... CHAAP TOBACCO Rs.86,850/-. The above properties
and two cell phones POCO F4 and One Plus were seized and they were
arrested
Section 366 of IPC and Section 4 of
POCO Act, 2012 alternatively under
Section 376(3) of IPC – Life
imprisonment for the remaining period
K.Jayakumar (Died) vs Koteeswaran on 17 September, 2008
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G.Rajasuria
year
2012, the accused cannot be proceeded under POCOS Act, also raised. The
trial Court, dismissed the discharge petition, against which, a revision
preferred before
pertinent to extract relevant provisions of the POCO Act
which reads as follows:
Sections 3 , 4 , 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act reads
thus
part of the Respondent Board was
significant and not a poco curante one. In the
meanwhile, as pointed-out by the Adjudicator,
the Claimant also
part of the Respondent Board was
significant and not a poco curante one. In the
meanwhile, as pointed-out by the Adjudicator, the
Claimant also
part of the Respondent Board was
significant and not a poco curante one. In the
meanwhile, as pointed-out by the Adjudicator, the
Claimant also
part of the Respondent Board was
significant and not a poco curante one. In the
meanwhile, as pointed-out by the Adjudicator, the
Claimant also
