Actor, Producer, Singer, Presenter
- NAME: Abdul Rashid Salim Salman Khan
- BORN: 27 December 1965
- ALMA MATER: Scindia School, Gwalior |St. Stanislaus High School, Mumbai | St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai
- OCCUPATION: Actor, Producer, Singer, Presenter
Salman Khan is an Indian actor. His off-screen life is marred by controversy and legal troubles. In 2015 he was convicted of culpable homicide for a negligent driving case in which he ran over five people with his car, killing one, but his conviction was set aside on appeal. On 5 April 2018, Khan was convicted in a blackbuck poaching case and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He is currently out on bail while an appeal is being heard.
- LEGAL BACKGROUND
- Salman Salim Khan v. State of Maharashtra | Bombay High Court | Criminal Appeal Nos. 572 and 1041 of 2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2015 | 10-12-2015 |
=> The appeal was filed regarding a matter relating to Sections 304 II, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1), 134, 181, 185 and 187 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was observed that there was non-examination of necessary and appropriate witnesses, the appreciation of evidence as done by Trial Court was not proper and legal as per settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, evidence to establish biological chain regarding alcohol consumption was not appreciated as per mandate of law. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and thus order of conviction was set aside.
- Salman Khan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. | Rajasthan High Court | S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 905/2007 and S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 149/2013 | 25-07-2016 |
=> Petitioner’s liability under section 51 of Wildlife Protection Act 1971 was questioned over the alleged killing of protected deer in the forests of Rajasthan. It was observed that alleged eyewitness was neither examined nor cross-examined, the place of incident was never got identified, no carcass of animal was found to establish that any animal at all was killed, nothing was found to show that tiny spots of blood from hotel and gypsy allegedly recovered pertained to the alleged hunting, there was no medical and postmortem report to establish as to which weapon or any weapon at all or whether knife was used as suggested, and therefore, the order of conviction was set aside.
- State of Rajasthan v. Salman Khan & Ors. | Sessions Court, Jodhpur | Criminal Original Petition No. 66/2011 (352/2000) arising out of FIR No. 93/26 (98) | 05-04-2018 |
=> The defendant here was charged under section 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1951 for alleged poaching of a Chinkara (Black buck). Defendant was held liable and punished with an imprisonment of 5 years. Currently, the defendant is out on a bail while an appeal is being heard.
- State of Rajasthan v. Salman Khan & Ors. | Sessions Court, Jodhpur | Criminal Petition under Arms Act | 18-01-2017 |
=> The defendant here was charged under section 3/25 and 3/27 of the Arms Act for alleged use weapons with expired license. However, the court had held that the prosecution failed to provide conclusive evidence, and therefore, the defendant was acquitted.
- The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mr. Salman Khan | Bombay High Court | Income Tax Appeal No. 2362 | 01-12-2009 |
=> The question before the court was whether tribunal was right in canceling the assessment order by holding that the assessment framed u/s. 143(3)/ 147 cannot be held to be a valid assessment as the A.O. has not assumed jurisdiction by issue of notice u/s. 143(2) for completion of the assessment. The court dismissed the appeal in limine for want of substantial question of law with no order as to costs.
- Salman Khan v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax | Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai | I.T.A. No. 2559/Mum/2013, I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2013 | 30-07-2014
- ACIT – 16(1), Mumbai v. Salman Khan | Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai | ITA 5957/MUM/2017 | 08-08-2019 |
=> Reassessment proceedings were initiated against the respondent under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The court held that since there was no fresh tangible material before the AO to reach a reasonable belief that the income liable to tax had escaped assessment. It is a settled position of law that review under the garb of reassessment is not permissible. Thus, reopening in the absence of “fresh tangible material” was declared to be invalid.
Read Disclaimer