send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
Please verify your mobile number
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Refer & Earn
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
“The area covered by Art. 20(3) of the constitution and Section 161(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is substantially the same. So much so, terminological expanision apart, sec. 161 (2) is a parliamentary gloss on the constitutional clause.” Respond to the statement made by the Supreme Court of India in Nandini Satpathy Vs. Dani (P.L.) and another, AIR 1978 SC 1025 and comment on the limits on the power of the police to interrogate and on the meaning of the term ‘accused’. (20 Marks)
By: santosh ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources