EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS PVT. LTD. & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA & Ors (7 October, 1985)
Bench: JUSTICE AP Sen
COURT’S OBSERVATION: The proposed action of re-entry by the lessor i.e. the Union of India, Ministry of Works & Housing at the instance of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi is meant to be an act of political vendetta. The impugned notices have been issued with an evil eye and an unequal hand and with a deliberate design to compel the petitioners to close down the Express Group of Newspapers in general and the Indian Express in particular. The said notices are ex facie illegal and without jurisdiction and are contrary to the factual and legal provisions.
CBI Vs Lalu Prasad Yadav (5 October, 2001)
BENCH: JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH (HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND)
COURT’S OBSERVATION: Misuse of public fund cannot be tolerated and the media reports said that the case is motivated from political ill will. False charges is not be entertained in such manners of corruption cases .
Mukul Roy Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors (20 July, 2018)
BENCH: JUSTICE SHIVAKANT PRASAD
COURT’S OBSERVATION: This Court concludes that the petitioner has been maliciously prosecuted with the false allegation of a cognizable offense at this distant point of time, for the FIRs being lodged belatedly after six years, maybe to wreak vengeance by foisting false cases after cases against him.
The learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and the veracity of the allegations, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case.
More from the package
Chandrababu Naidu Arrest: Yet Another Scapegoat?
Prof Upendra Baxi on the Chandrababu Naidu arrest
Opposition leaders decry TDP chief’s arrest
Supreme Court on Manish Sisodia arrest
Amar Singh Vs State of UP & Ors (20 May, 2011)
BENCH: JUSTICES IMTIAZ MURTAZA, SHYAM SHANKAR TIWARI
COURT’S OBSERVATION: It is a well established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise, justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant. In view of the above discussion, we find no substance in the submissions that the proceeding is liable to be quashed on grounds of malafide and political rivalries.
Anil Vasantrao Deshmukh Vs Enforcement Directorate (29 October, 2021)
BENCH: JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR , JUSTICE SV KOTWAL
COURT’S OBSERVATION: The Supreme Court observed that if the criminal prosecution is otherwise justifiable and based on adequate evidence, it does not become vitiated on account of malice or political vendetta of the first informant or complainant.