Banshilal V State - Judgment Search Results

Kalu and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1991(1)WLN322

seizing officer and lodged the FIR. He relied on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in case of Banshilal v. State of Rajasthan decided on 21st February, 1990. His third argument was that as per the provisions of Section

Bhootaram Vs. State and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1980WLN(UC)82a

respondents before the Tribunal that para No. 7 (xi) of the appeal was admitted. He referred to shri Banshilal v. State of Rajasthan and Swami Saran v. State of U.P. 1979 (2) SLR 781. I have carefully read these

B.N. Subba Rao Vs. State of Mysore

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: AIR1955Kant1; AIR1955Mys1; 1955CriLJ160

Munnilal', AIR 1936 Nag 86 (A); --'Maganbhai v. State of M. P.', AIR 1953 Nag 290 (B); -- 'Banshilal v. state', AIR 1954 Nag 30(C) and -- 'Santi Lal v. Emperor', AIR 1948 Clause 103 (D) cited by Sri

Mannu Kaduba Gavane and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai Aurangabad

The State of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No. 10695/2012 decided on 27th February, 2013 [Karnataka High Court], v] Banshilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8582/2013 decided on 5th September, 2013 [Madhya Pradesh

Tahsildar Singh and anr. Vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1959SC1012; 1959CriLJ1231; [1959]Supp(2)SCR875

A.I.R. 1932 Lah. 103, Yusuf Mia v. Emperor A.I.R. 1938 Pat. 579, and State of M. P. v. Banshilal Behari A.I.R. 1956 M.P. 13. 46. Reliance is placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on a … the criminals and later at the trial four are mentioned.' 40. The Allahabad High Court in Ram Bali v. State A.I.R. 1952 All. 280 expressed the principle with its underlying reasons thus at p. 294 : 'Witness after

Braj Kishore Singh and ors. Vs. State of Bihar and ors.

Court: Patna

statute, the context in which the provision occurs and the purpose for which it is made.24. In Pannalal Banshilal Pitti v. State of Andhra Pradesh : [1996]1SCR603 , certain provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu … to the one issued by this Court in CWJC No. 3790 of 1985 (Kiran Prakash, Gupta and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. and CWJC No. 5647 of 1990 (Shashi Ranjan Kumar Shukla v. State of Bihar

Farooq Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(2)MPHT491; 2005(3)MPLJ15

form the basis of conviction of the appellant. The decision of this Court in State of M.P. v. Banshilal Beharilal, 1957 MPLJ 852 has been cited in support of the plea that where a witness is proved … which does not clearly specify a cognizable offence cannot be treated as first information report. In Soma Bhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1975 SC 1453 it has been held by the Supreme Court that cryptic information given

Ajit Singh Vs. State

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2002CriLJ2256

it is established that accused had received the notes he is bound to explain the possession forthwith.18. In Banshilal Yadav v. State of Bihar 1981 Cr LJ 741 : AIR 1981 SC 1235, Apex Court held that … material on records. For want of valid sanction, case could not proceed on merits.10. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1979 SC 677 : 1979 Cri LJ 633, Apex Court held that validity of

Jaya Bhaduri and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1999(3)WLC723; 1999(1)WLN478

2184; and Durga Oil Co. and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. : [1998]3SCR922 .19. In Pannalal Banshilal Petti and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. : [1996]1SCR603 , the Supreme Court observed that … view has been taken in Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanepravan Kalliani Amma v. K. Devi : AIR1996SC1963 ; L.K. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu : 1996CriLJ1635 ; and New Delhi Municipal Council v. State of Punjab and Ors. :

State of Rajasthan Vs. Naresh Chand

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1988(2)WLN259

placed by respondent on the cases of State of Rajasthan v. Ram Sahai and State of Rajasthan v. Banshilal reported in 1979 Cr. LR (Raj)60. It may be mentioned that in the report of the Chief Public