Question
Delhi High Court issued guidelines for the protection of
witness inSolution
Neelam Katara case (2003), in this case the petition to formulate witness protection in the light of public importance was presented before the Court. This was presented in view of protecting the interest of the witness and to safeguard them against the possibility of the witness being harassed or intimidated at the hands of the accused or any accomplices with the accused. In this light the High Court had formulated certain guidelines to be termed as “Witness Protection Guidelines” until a suitable legislation was brought into effect. This guideline was formulated in the present case of Neelam Katara v. Union of India, which is popularly known as the Witness Protection Guidelines Case. Naina Sahni case (2007), Tandoor murder case: When a Congress leader killed his wife, stuffed her body in a tandoor and set it on fire. Naina Sahni was shot dead by her husband Sushil Sharma, a Congress leader and Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) back then, over the suspicion of Naina having an extramarital affair with Matloob Karim, her school-time friend, ex-boyfriend, and a co-worker-at the Congress party. Naina had been planning to leave Sushil and move to Australia. Sushil and Naina were having frequent confrontations over her alleged extramarital affair coupled with her decision to leave him and move abroad. Uphaar Cinema case (2005), The case is now considered a breakthrough in civil compensation law. Uphaar Cinema was owned by two brothers, Gopal and Sushil Ansal, who were famous real estate barons in Delhi. The fire was caused by two faulty transformers that had been shoddily repaired. Public alarm and emergency lights systems were out of order and there were only two fire extinguishers available. Court convicted the Ansal brothers and other accused under IPC sections 201 (tampering of evidence), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 409 (criminal breach of trust by public servant) and awarded a seven-year jail term along with a fine of Rs 2.25 crore for each in the case Mohammad Afzal Guru (June 1969 – 9 February 2013) was a Kashmiri separatist, who was convicted for his role in the 2001 Indian Parliament attack. Parliament attack case (2006).The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence against Afzal Guru despite the fact the court held that there was no direct evidence against him. The Supreme Court categorically stated that there was no evidence to show that Mohammad Afzal was a member of any banned organization
Under the MSME-Innovative scheme, what is the maximum percentage of financial assistance provided by the Government of India for design projects underta...
A loan of ₹5,00,000 is taken at an interest rate of 10% per annum for 5 years with equal annual principal repayments. What is the total interest paid ...
In a process costing system, actual loss was lower than the normal loss estimated. The accountant identifies an abnormal gain. Which of the following co...
In which of the following scenarios is an account classified as 'Loss Asset'?
Calculate Rate of Return on Shareholders' Funds
How does the purchase of a new machinery to expand production capacity affect the working capital of a company ABC Limited?
Which of the following are considered primary securit y in the context of CGTMSE?  Â
Under the Special Economic Zones (SEZ) Act, 2005, which authority is responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of Special Economic Zon...
In which of the following arrangement, a commission is earned by many intermediaries through reinsurance agreements?
What is the new exemption threshold for contactless card transactions under the RBI's proposed Alternative Factor Authentication for digital payments?