Advanced Search Results

State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramdeen and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378, 378(1), 378(3), 417, 417(2) and 417(3); Indian Penal Code (IPC), - Sections 149, 302, 304, 323 and 324; Limitation Act - Schedule - Article 114

Reported in : AIR1977SC1328; 1977CriLJ997; (1977)2SCC630; [1977]3SCR139; 1977()WLN107

Court, the appeal will be disposed of in accordance with law. Criminal - time-barred - Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - whether application of appellant is time-barred - application for leave to appeal made by appellant is … Lim. Act being an Act of the year 1963, does not naturally refer to Section 378 of the CrPC 1973. Section 378 of the CrPC, 1973, is equivalent to Section 417 of the old Code with an important difference in

State by Kudremukh Police, Chickmagalur District. Vs. Nagesha, Chickma ...

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC) 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 201; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 378

BHOSALE; B.V. PINTO, JJ.] Indian Penal Code, (IPC) 1860 - Sections 302, 34, 201; Code Of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 378 -- The prosecution case is upon circumstantial evidence. In an appeal against acquittal the appellate … follows:1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can re-appreciate the entire evidence on

State of Haryana Vs. Ram Pal and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 148, 149, 302, 304, 323, 378(3), 452 and 506; Constitution of India - Article 141; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378(3)

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)557; 2005CriLJ1718; 2005(1)CTC797; JT2005(2)SC267; 2005(1)KLT870(SC); (2005)3SCC347; 2005(1)LC273(SC)

by any observation made in the present appeal. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated. Criminal - Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 - Section 378(3) - Refusal to grant leave to file appeal against acquittal - Non-grant of reasons for

K. Ramakrishnappa Vs. State by Bandur Camp Police Station

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 32 and 113A; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 313, 374(2), 378 and 386; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 107, 304B, 306 and 498A

Reported in : 2007(5)KarLJ83

Supreme Court's interference with the same - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 378 and 386.In the case of Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of Madhya Pradesh … K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment of conviction dated 19-4-1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C. No. … K. Ramanna, J.1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment of conviction dated 19-4-1996, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in S.C. No.

State of Maharashtra Vs. Kishore Annaji Chawade

Court : Mumbai

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 256(1), 256(2), 262, 378(1), 378(2), 378(3), 378(4), 378(5) and 439; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Sections 7 and 16(1)

Reported in : 1990CriLJ1556; 1989MhLJ139

maintainable, in view of section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He relied on a Single Bench judgment of this Court in State … should have been filed by the Food Inspector who was the complainant, in view of Section 378(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, by applying for special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal. The learned Judge observed that in … firstly, whether the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was justified in acquitting the respondent under S. 256(1) Criminal Procedure Code, and secondly, whether the appeal by the State is competent under S. 378(1), Criminal Procedure Code. For deciding

Md. Ankoos and ors. Vs. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 145; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 109, 120B, 148, 149, 302, 307 and 448; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 145, 161, 161(3), 162, 172, 172(2), 172(3), 378 and 386

Reported in : AIR2010SC566; 2009(57)BLJR2852; JT2009(14)SC6; 2010(I)OLR(SC)556; 2009(13)SCALE584; (2010)1SCC94; 2009(10)LC4781(SC)

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on … court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on … village. 77 persons were sent up for trial for the offences under Sections 148, 448, 307, 302, 120B read with 109, IPC. The Court of

Hareram Satpathy and anr. Vs. Premlal Suna and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), (Cr.P.C) 1973 - Section 378(4)

Reported in : 57(1984)CLT141(SC); 1984Supp(1)SCC685

of the same on merits in accordance with law. - [A.P. Sen and; v. Balakrishnan Eradi, JJ.] -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Summary dismissal of application by High Court for grant of leave under, held, … of the Orissa High Court, summarily dismissing an application for grant of leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Although this Court, as a normal rule, does not interfere with an order of

State of Kerala Vs. Chellappan Sanal Kumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302, 392, 457, 369 and 201; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 (Cr.P.C) - Section 378

Reported in : 1981(Supp)SCC15

the reasons stated, the appeal fails and is dismissed. - [ A.D. Koshal and; Baharul Islam, JJ.] -- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 378 - Appeal against acquittal - Prosecution case not proved by reliable evidence and suffering from … - On facts held, acquittal of accused recorded by trial court and dismissal of application under Section 378, CrPC for leave to appeal by High Court justified -- The respondent was tried by the Sessions Judge, Trivandrum

State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalLimitation

Acts : Limitation Act, 1963 - Sections 5; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378(3); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 302, 307 and 326

Reported in : AIR2005SC2191; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)697; 100(2005)CLT111(SC); 2005(183)ELT337(SC); JT2005(4)SC10; 2005(2)KLT547(SC); RLW2005(3)SC357; (2005)3SCC752; 2005(1)LC648(SC)

be adjudicated by the High Court.21. Appeal is allowed. Criminal - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1973 - Section 378(3) - Delay in filing application for grant of leave - Condonation of delay - Sufficient

R.M. Donde, Income-tax Officer Vs. Mukundrai Kuberdas Katakia and Anot ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Income Tax Act, 1961 - Sections 18, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 133, 145, 276, 276B, 283, 285 and 286; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 193 and 467; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 276, 278(5) and 378(5)

Reported in : (1988)90BOMLR502; [1989]176ITR381(Bom)

and the appeals dismissed. Income-tax Act (Act XLIII of 1961), Sections 276(b), 285, 18, 43, 145, 194A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act II of 1974), Section 378(5)--Limitation Act (Act XXXVI of 1963), Section 12(2)--Time spent in obtaining certified … July 28, 1981. Counsel for the accused formulates this contention, vide, limitation, thus : Section 378(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which governs these appeals, prescribes a period of six months for moving an application