Advanced Search Results

State of MaharashtrA. Vs. Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - 302, 307, 326, 427, 436, 20A, 120B, 123, 124, 34; ndian Explosives Act; Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act; Indian Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 151, 152, 153, 154; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 40; Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 - Sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4); Passports Act, 1967 - Section 12(1)(c); Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 6, 11, 5 to 16, 26, 30, 30(b), 31

were charged with offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 427, 436, 20A, 120B, 123 and 124 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-respondents were also charged with offences under the … serial nos. 64 to 66 are admissible through the said witnesses (at serial nos. 64 to 66) under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. It is pointed out by learned counsel representing the appellant, that in law there

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. G. Annadurai

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Central Reserve Police Fore Act, 1949 - Sections 11(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 379; Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227

Reported in : AIR2009SC3049; JT2009(6)SC89; 2009(6)SCALE776; 2009(3)SLJ230(SC); 2009(6)LC2594(SC):2009AIRSCW4892

before the Officer in charge of Golaghat Police Station alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). P.S. Case No. 257 of 1997 was registered. The respondent was arrested in connection … as the deserter with effect from 14.8.1997 by order dated 19.12.1997. Thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted under Section 11(1) of the Central Reserve Police Fore Act, 1949 (in short the `Act') read with Rule 27 of the

T. Shankar Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 4, 4(1), 5, 5(1), 5(2), 5(3), 7, 11, 13(1), 13(2) and 20; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 120B, 161, 165 and 165A ; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 313; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 4 and 114

Reported in : 2004CriLJ884; 2004(164)ELT143(SC); JT2004(1)SC188; 2004(1)SCALE318; (2004)3SCC753

with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC'). 2. Appellants T. Shankar Prasad (in Crl. A. No. 909/1997) and Ghaiz Basha (in … common judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which upheld the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 11, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and

Bhupinder Singh and ors. Vs. Jarnail Singh and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 158, 161, 167, 167(2), 170, 173, 173(2) and 173(5); Punjab Borstal Act, 1926 - Sections 5; Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 2; ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 21, 302, 304B and 386; ;Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Sections 11; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 173(1)

Reported in : AIR2006SC2622; 2006CriLJ3621; II(2006)DMC334SC; JT2006(6)SC619; 2006(4)KLT460(SC); 2006(4)MPHT327; 2006(7)SCALE79; (2006)6SCC277

2005 (1) R Cri 107, and Nadeem Ahmed v. State holding that in relation to Section 304(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') period of 60 days of remand would be applicable and not 90 days for … checked, found correct'.14. In Satya Narain Musadi and Ors. v. State of Bihar : 1980CriLJ227 dealing with the Section 11 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 held as follows:Section 11 of the Act precludes a Court from taking

Tulsiram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CriminalFood Adulteration

Acts : Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - Rule 9A; Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Sections 2, 11(1), 13(2) and 16(1); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 272 and 276

Reported in : AIR1985SC299; 1984CriLJ1731; 1985(1)Crimes313(SC); 1985MPLJ127(SC); 1984(2)SCALE578; (1984)4SCC487; [1985]1SCR949

13 (2) and 16 (1) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and Sections 272 and 276 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - appellant accused of adulterating soyabean oil convicted by Magistrate under Section 16 (1) (a) (i) - appeal … 7 and 13 of the Act and the new Rules made as a consequence. Before the 1976 amendment, Section 11 required the Food Inspector taking a sample for analysis to separate the sample into three parts, seal or

Virender Yadav @ Vicky @ Chhotu Vs. State of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 397, 307, 186, 353, 120B, 34, 392; Arms Act, 1959 - Sections 25, 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Section 313; Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 - Section 7A(2)

the judgment dated 31.07.2009, by which the appellant was held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in case FIR No.17/2005 registered at police station Ashok Vihar and has further challenged the sentence order of … property namely the briefcase was however got identified by the complainant in the TIP proceedings held on 14.01.2005. 11. In the meanwhile, co-accused Ajay Kumar and appellant had already charge-sheet to the Court separately in both the

Salman Qureshi vs State (Gnct of Delhi)

Court : Delhi

Subject : Right to Information

190/2015, registered at Police Station Anand Vihar, Delhi, for the commission of offences punishabe under Sections 392/397/411/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’), wherein the applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC … The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant states thatthe applicant herein has been facing trial for 11 years and is about 42 years of age, and has remained in judicial custody for 01 years and

State Vs. Bansi Dhar and ors.

Court : Delhi

Subject : Criminal

Trial court convicted the three respondents and held them guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and all the three respondents were sentenced individually for the period already undergone … CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SISTANI G.S. SISTANI, J.1. Present appeal has been filed by the State under Section 377(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as, Cr.P.C.) for enhancing the sentence awarded … learned Additional Sessions Judge in the judgment dated 20.3.2004, are that on 11.7.1995, duty Constable Dinesh, posted at AIIMS Hospital, telephonically informed Police Station Mehrauli

Prithvi Raj and ors. Vs. Kamlesh Kumar and anr.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 - Sections 3, 4, 11, 11(2) and 11(4); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 307, 323, 324 and 326; ;Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973

Reported in : AIR2004SC4401; 2004CriLJ4238; [2005(2)JCR65(SC)]; RLW2004(4)SC572; 2004(8)SCALE82; (2004)8SCC303; 2005(1)LC265(SC)

for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). Learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, Rajasthan, held that though accusations relating to Sections 307, 307 … Arijit Pasayat, J.1. Two interesting questions both revolving round Section 11 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short the 'Act') are involved in this appeal. Though the

Parshadi Lal Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi

Court : Delhi

Subject : Land Acquisition

for the offence punishable under Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860, therefore, not attracted in the instant case. 11. Learned Trial Judge has recorded further in its judgment that with regard to the offence punishable under Section … for petitioner submitted that the charges against the petitioner were framed for the offences punishable under Section 420/468/471 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 420 Indian Penal Code, 1860 pre-supposes that dishonest inducement/ representation has been made and acting upon the same,