Skip to content

Advanced Search Results

Act1: the indian penal code 1860 section 378 · Page 1 of about 818 results (0.063 seconds)

Pulse this search Log in to save a LexPulse alert for this search

AI Studio

AI Brief on every result

Start a 7-day free trial - 18-section briefs and case chat on any judgment in these results, plus Semantic Search on your next query.

Sep 29 2008

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Manoj Kumar @ Chhotu

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-29-2008

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378, 378(1) and 378(3); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 376, 506 and 511; Constitution of India - Article 141

Reported in : 2008CriLJ4685; 2008(13)SCALE82; 2008AIRSCW6375; 2008(4)Crimes1; 2008(6)Supreme721.

the `Code'). The respondent faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 376/511 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC'). The Trial Court found that the accusations were not established and directed his acquittal giving … judgment of a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissing the application filed in terms of Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The respondent faced trial for alleged commission

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 27 2004

State Vs. Holi Ram

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Jan-27-2004

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378 and 378(3); ;Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 302; Evidence Act - Sections 118

Reported in : 111(2004)DLT495; 2004(74)DRJ460

to acquittal from the charge framed against him for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'the IPC').2. The case set up by the prosecution was that on receipt of information that … D.K. Jain, J.1. In this leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short), the State seeks to question the legality of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Dec 07 1987

Madhu Sudan Malhotra Vs. Kishore Chand Bhandari and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Dec-07-1987

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 - Section 378(4); Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Section 406

Reported in : 1988(36)BLJR360; 1988Supp(1)SCC424

on merits and decided as to whether the respondents were guilty of offences punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 by the wrongul retention of the … and circumstances of the case the High Court was in error in refusing to grant leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. We are prima facie inclined to the view that the furnishing

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

18-section briefs on any result in this list

Mar 21 2007

Bandrappa Vs. State by Gadigenur Police

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Mar-21-2007

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 378, 379 and 420; Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - Sections 3, 4(1A), 21 and 22; Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 70; Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1969

Reported in : ILR2007KAR3190; 2007(3)KLJ183; 2007(4)AIRKarR94; 2007(3)KarLJ183

Gadigenur Police Station, Sandur Taluk, which is registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 4( 1-A) of Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as … it is so, the petitioner cannot extract and transport the ore without necessary permission of the State Government.4. Section 378 of the IPC defines 'theft'. The relevant portion of the said section reads thus:378. Theft. - Whoever, intending

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jul 28 2006

K. Ramakrishnappa Vs. State by Bandur Camp Police Station

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Jul-28-2006

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

Singh Sengar v. State of Madhya Pradesh : 2002CriLJ2796 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows.-(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 306 read with Section 107 - Abetment of suicide - Quarrel taking place between appellant and deceased in … held, there was no justification for 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 and Anr. 1995 SCC (Cri.) 943

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Sep 18 2006

Suga Ram @ Chhuga Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Sep-18-2006

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 148, 149 and 302; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378(1), 378(2), 378(3), 378(5), 397 and 401; Constitution of India - Articles 136 and 141

Reported in : AIR2006SC3258; 2006CriLJ4643; JT2006(12)SC441; 2006(II)OLR(SC)782; 2006(9)SCALE365; (2006)8SCC641

faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( in short the IPC) and Section 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities … persons to be not guilty and directed their acquittal. State of Rajasthan filed application in terms of Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal. By order dated 29.4.2005 the said application was rejected. Much before

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Nov 28 2001

Arjun Vs. Ranchhod and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Decided on : Nov-28-2001

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1974 - Sections 378(3); Indian Penal code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 336

Reported in : 2002(1)MPHT558

- Section 378(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973(Cr.P.C.) and Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 and 336 of Indian Penal Code, 1860(IPC) - Non-applicants were accused of offence under Sections 147, 148, 302, 323 and 336 r/w 149 of

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jun 13 2008

Syed Peda Aowlia Vs. the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hydera ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Jun-13-2008

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 302; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 378(1) and 378(3)

Reported in : 2008(2)ALD(Cri)429; 2008CriLJ3486; (2008)11SCC394; 2008AIRSCW4326; 2008(3)Crimes44; 2008(3)AICLR616; 2008(4)Supreme524; 2008(4)LH(SC)2331

faced trial for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC'). The trial Court on analyzing the evidence had found that the prosecution has not … been able to establish its accusations and accordingly directed acquittal. The State filed an appeal in terms of Section 378 (1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code'). The High Court by

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Jan 28 2003

P. Venkataramaiah and ors. Vs. the Station House Officer, Chittamur Po ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Decided on : Jan-28-2003

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 155(2), 378, 379 and 482; Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 - Sections 20, 52, 55, 59, 59(1) and 59(2); Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 482

Reported in : 2003(4)ALT494

Chittamuru Police Station, on the ground that the FIR does not disclose any ingredients of Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for brevity) and also on the ground that the alleged offence has been compounded under Section 59(1) … without that person's consent, an offence of theft is made out as per the definition of theft in Section 378 of the IPC. This ingredient is amply present in the FIR. The first submission is therefore false.Here it

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

Feb 07 2008

State of U.P. Vs. Ajai Kumar

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : Feb-07-2008

Subject : Criminal

Acts : Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 307, 394 and 411; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 378

Reported in : AIR2008SC1269; 2008(2)ALD(Cri)467; 2008(3)ALT(Cri)300; 2008CriLJ1937; 2008(2)SCALE276; (2008)3SCC351; 2008AIRSCW1303; 2008(1)Crimes399; 2008(2)AICLR459; 2008(3)LH(SC)2188; 2008(2)KCCRSN161

and could not be arrested. Four persons faced trial for offences punishable under Sections 394, 307, 411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). The allegation was that on 15.3.1994 while the informant alongwith one Sushil Kumar, son … leave to appeal, in our view, has nothing to do with the fact that the appeal envisaged under Section 378 Cr.P.C is conditioned upon the seeking for and obtaining of the leave from the court. This Court has

Tag this Judgment! AI Brief & Ask

AI Brief (18 sections) + Semantic Search - 7 days free

  • ‹ Prev
  • Last »

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial