Advanced Search Results

Mr. Sourish Bose Vs. State Of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Service Tax

would vehemently contend that the crime is erroneously registered. These are online transactions. Therefore, Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short) is what had to be laid against these petitioners and not Section 420 of

Leena Paulose vs State Nct of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

APPLN. 1802/2024 Page 1 of 42 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [“IPC”], and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 [“IT Act”]. At the time of filing of the chargesheet, Sections 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Control

Dr. Rini Johar and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. andors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Right to Information

FIR No.24/2012 under Section 420 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (for brevity, ‘the Act’) was registered against the petitioners by Cyber Police Headquarters, Bhopal, M.P. The respondent no.2, … kept as the relevant evidence. The crime was registered on 27.11.2012 under Section 420, 34 IPC read with Section 66D IT Act, 2000 against the named accused persons. The offence was to the effect that though the alleged

Vijay Shankar Rao Gore vs State of Nct of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

of offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/61(2)(A)/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter ‘BNS’) and Section 66D/66C of Information Technology Act, 2000 (hereafter ‘IT Act’).2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are that upon receipt of a complaint

Ashok Kumar Pal vs Directorate of Enforcement

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

Mandir Marg, New Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 318(4)/338/336(3)/340(2)/61(2) of the BNS and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, concerning substantially the same transaction, and was thereafter incorporated into theECIR.9. The Applicant cooperated with the investigation and

Sundar Singh vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : Criminal

offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, 1860 and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.2. The petitioner was arrested on 09.10.2024. While hewas in judicial custody, the Sessions Court, Alappuzha granted him

Shaman M.K.P vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Subject : Right to Information

against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC and also under Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.3. The prosecution case is that, the accused/petitioner contacted the de-facto complainant through Telegram introducing himself as he

Muhammed Arshad, vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

Sections 384 and 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act,2000. The petitioner was arrested on 17.03.2024.2. The crux of the prosecution case, is that; the accused, in

Ananthu Sivan , vs State of Kerala,

Court : Kerala

alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of Information Technology Act 2000.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel appearing for

Akash Sasi K.P. vs State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

are under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.2. The crime was registered based on a complaint submitted by a person, who approached the accused persons,