Advanced Search Results

M/S. B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ConstitutionCommercial

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(6), 40, 47, 53, 73, 162, 245, 246, 248, 258, 266, 269(3), 276, 286(3), 292, 293, 298, 301, 302, 303 and 304; Lotteries(Regulation) Act, 1998 - Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12(3); Government of India Act, 1935; U.P. Unauthorized Lottery(Prevention) Act, 1995 - Sections 8;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 294A; English Lotteries Act, 1823; Common Wealth of Australian Constitution Act, - Sections 21, 73 and 92; Lotteries and Amusements Act, 1976; Lotteries and Art Unions Act, 1901-1929;

Reported in : AIR1999SC1867; JT1999(3)SC431; 1999(3)SCALE171; [1999]2SCR1111

the Government of India Act, 1935 the adoption of Laws Order 1937 has included in Section 294A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 an exception to the offence of keeping a lottery office by excluding from the scope thereof 'any lottery

Cheekolu Nagaiah Vs. State of A.P. and anr.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 294A, 406, 409, 415, 418, 419 and 420; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 173

Reported in : 2005(1)ALD(Cri)989; II(2006)BC46

petitioner alleging that the petitioner has committed offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 418, 419 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The facts, leading to filing the case, in brief, are noticed in the ensuing paragraph,2. The petitioner … Initially, the complainant approached Station House Officer of P.S., Sriharikota, who registered Case No. 11 of 1999 under Section 294A of IPC. The same was taken on file as S.T.C. No. l10 of 1999. The said case was

B.R. Enterprises Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 19(1), 298, 301, 303; Lotteries(Regulation) Act, 1998 - Sections 4 and 5; India Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 4 and 294A

Reported in : (2000)1GLR242; (1999)9SCC700; [2000]120STC302(SC)

the Government of India Act, 1935 the adoption of Laws Order, 1937 has included in Section 294A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 an exception to the offence of keeping a lottery office by excluding from the scope thereof 'any lottery

State of Bombay Vs. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwalia and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 5, 11, 14, 19(1), 19(6), 226, 245, 246, 246(3), 255, 276(1), 276(2), 276(3), 286(1), 286(2), 301, 302, 303, 303(1), 303(2), 304 and 304(4); Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Act, 1948 - Sections 1, 2, 2(1), 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 12(2), 12A, 15, 31 and 33; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908; Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax (Amendment) Act, 1952 - Sections 12A; Government of India Act, 1935 - Sections 297 and 297(1); Bombay Lotteries and Prize Competitions Control and Tax Rules, 1949 - Rules 2 and 7; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 294A; Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887; Income-tax Act; Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937

Reported in : AIR1956Bom1; (1955)57BOMLR288; ILR1955Bom680

neither betting nor gambling. He points out that the only legislation in India which dealt with lotteries was the Indian Penal Code and Section 294A penalized the drawing of lotteries unless they were authorized by the State. Mr. Manekshaw also

Bansidhar Singh and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 294A, 341, 467 and 468

Reported in : [2005(1)JCR310(Jhr)]

taking cognizance dated 26.8.2003 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/294A/467/468, IPC against the petitioners in C/1, Case No. 541 of 2003.2. The opposite party No. 2 (complainant) lodged a … taking cognizance dated 26.8.2003 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/294A/467/468, IPC against the petitioners in C/1, Case No. 541 of 2003.2. The opposite party No. 2 (complainant) lodged a … allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance dated 26.8.2003 and the entire criminal proceedings being C/1 Case No. 541 of 2003 are hereby quashed. - … whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341/294A/467/468, IPC against the petitioners in C/1, Case No. 541 of 2003.2.

Govt. of Manipur Vs. State of Punjab and Another

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : Constitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 14, 19(6), 73, 246, 246(1) and (3), and 298; Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 294A; Bombay Lotteries (Control and Tax) and Prize Competition (Tax) Act, 1958 - Sections 3 and 32;

Reported in : AIR1997P& H28

I.P.C. is being undertaken to make sate of tickets, without the consent of the State Government concerned, a penal offence.' The proposed amendment is yet to see the light of day.'7. Question 'about the competence of the … taken away by law. It is pertinent to note that Section 100-A introduced by 2002 Amendment of the Code starts with a non obstante clause. The purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of … add that in order to achieve this object an amendment of S. 294A, I.P.C. is being undertaken to make sate of tickets, without the consent

H. Anraj and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : CommercialConstitution

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 294A; Constitution of India - Articles 73, 246, 246(1), 246(3), 258, 258(1) and 298

Reported in : AIR1984SC781; 1984(1)SCALE93; (1984)2SCC292; [1984]2SCR440; 1984(16)LC909(SC)

1968 which says,I am to add that in order to achieve this object an amendment of Section 294-A IPC is being undertaken to make sale of tickets, without the consent of the State Government concerned, a penal … if they were unlawful. The Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh High Courts have dissented from this view. In Special Civil Application No. 1309 of 1970 Bhagwati, C.J. presiding over a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court and

Emperor Vs. Vazirally

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : (1928)30BOMLR1426

and sentence should be set aside, and the fine, if paid, refunded. Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), Section 294 A-Lottery- Publication of proposal-'Drawing' meaning of.;The accused, the sole agent in India of a certain brand of … J.1. In this case the accused is tried on a charge under Section 291 A (second part) of the Indian Penal Code for publishing a proposal for the drawing of a lottery. The accused, who is the proprietor of the … ticket, lot, number or figure in a lottery.4. The ingredients of the offence under the second part of Section 294A are, firstly, there must be a lottery, secondly, there must be a drawing of any ticket, lot, number

Emperor Vs. Rachappa Murigeppa Shabadi

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Criminal

Reported in : AIR1925Bom26; (1924)26BOMLR968; 83Ind.Cas.1006

lottery can be had at a particular place is no offence under para 2 of Section 294A of the Indian Penal Code, since it does not constitute a publication of a proposal to pay any sum on any event or … to amend the Act on the lines of the corresponding English statute. Indian Penal Code (Act XLV of 1860), iiec. 294A--Lottery not authorised by Government--Circular stating that tickets in such lottery can be had at a shop--No

Surdarshan Kumar and ors. Vs. Gangacharan Dubey and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34, 294A, 295 and 297; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 197 and 204

Reported in : 2000CriLJ1618

and S.H.O. of police at the relevant place.2. The contention that Sections 294A and 295, I.P.C. were also attracted against these accused, was however rejected … respondents complaining of an alleged offer of indignity by the petitioners and others to the corpse of notorious criminal Raju Munda who was killed in an encounter by police on 30-12-1994 in village Berkhedi, Police Station Rahatgarh. … order dated 14-2-1995 of Shri Rishabh Kumar Jain, C.J.M. Sagar whereby C.J.M. took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 297/34, I.P.C. against the present petitioners and had directed under Section 204, Cr.P.C. against them to stand their