Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 Section 28 - Judgment Search Results

Muthukumarsawmi Pillai and ors. Vs. Emperor

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 14Ind.Cas.896

case tried in accordance with the provisions of the indian criminal law amendment act and we have therefore no jurisdiction to the opinion of the high court on any question of law however vital in its bearing on the trial on which constituted under section 6 b of the indian criminal law amendment act 108 for an offence punishable under section 121a indian 53 l t 394 where a single section of an act is introduced into another act it must be read in nature of a code to follow the language of the sections of the act so far as they are clear and 1911 1 m w n 327 21 m l j 283 in which the question arose before ayling j and myself

Emperor Vs. Jiban Kristo Bagchi

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : (1913)ILR40Cal318

are obviously made triable together by section 234 of the criminal procedure code 8 but although the first and the second doubt the first and second of the charges laid could lawfully be tried together by virtue of the provision of section code as amended by section 4 of the criminal law amendment act 1895 3 the third charge is that on the august last when a prisoner was committed for three different acts of criminal breach of trust and also for forgery and the joinder of the three at one trial must see section 233 of the criminal procedure code be brought within the 1 1901 i l r 25 mad 61 l r 28 i a 257 vitiate the trial 6 no doubt the

The King-emperor Vs. Nilakanta Alias Brahmachari and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1912)22MLJ490

extent of the presumption the learned editors of roscoe on criminal evidence xiii edition observe at page 11 0 thus the discretion a large number of presumptions to which the english law gives to a greater or less extent an artificial value statute nor is there anything in the indian criminal law amendment act to suggest that the legislature was conscious that it may well stand with section 157 of the indian evidence act i therefore agree with the view of the special bench the police in the courses of investigations by the latter section 146 forbids the police to offer any inducement by threat it is now settled as evidence of corroboration rex v 28 that in the opinion of the court such statements if

Muthukumaraswami Pillai and Seven ors. Vs. King-emperor

Court : Chennai

Reported in : (1912)ILR35Mad397

to 26 which are embodied first in the code of criminal procedure of 1861 and aferwards transferred without material alteration to not follow that juries are bound as a matter of law to do so 45 in the present case the majority by a special bench appointed under the indian criminal law amendment act of 1908 his content on is that cases under under section 149 now section 26 of the indian evidence act as well as to confessions to the police themselves coming l r 1884 calc 970 the contrary view was held section 157 was considered in both the cases in the former fanindra nath banerjee v emperor i l r 1909 cal 281 and of karamat hussain j in rustam v king emperor

Hyde Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

amendment of the constitution of the united states requiring all criminal prosecutions to be in the district wherein the crime shall of the government to indict them where in contemplation of law the agreement was made it is said that the conspiracy the elkins act a continuing offense and that the sixth amendment of the constitution of the united states providing that an 381 382 an attempt in the strictest sense is an act expected to bring about a substantive wrong by the forces use the privilege of this act after fraudulently acquiring school sections from california and oregon and conspired to corrupt or use he did the act strassheim v daily 221 u s 280 221 u s 285 but as states usually confine their

Kiernan Vs. Portland

Court : US Supreme Court

and amend their municipal charter subject to the constitution and criminal laws of the state of oregon 1 lord s oregon amend their municipal charter subject to the constitution and criminal laws of the state of oregon 1 lord s oregon laws brief by virtue of the above mentioned initiative and referendum amendments to the oregon constitution 4 can the city of portland have not deemed it necessary to take into consideration the act of congress 36 stat c 253 p 1348 expressly approving the rest of the section and the remainder of the section is valid as thereby the supreme court of oregon attempted

Hendricks Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

proceeding may have been to determine the identity of the criminal it was not essential that the proceedings should state the make and whether he himself paid the fees required by law to be paid upon the making of such final proof the accused under the page 223 u s 179 sixth amendment to the constitution of the united states are stated in honestly and in good faith made for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation and not for the benefit of any 11 and the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of section 12 in township 7 south and range 22 east reference

Standard Oil Co. Vs. Missouri

Court : US Supreme Court

the fact that at one time the proceeding was wholly criminal and those guilty of usurping a franchise were prosecuted by a court has original general jurisdiction criminal and civil at law and in equity it cannot enter a judgment which is defendants were denied due process of law under the fourteenth amendment they were entitled to notice and an opportunity to be notice of its withdrawal from the state nor whether the act of 1907 amending the anti trust act operated to relieve its charter for that which though page 224 u s 289 innocent in itself is beyond the power conferred upon it

Rosenthal Vs. New York

Court : US Supreme Court

guilty to an indictment charging him with the crime of criminally receiving stolen property in that he being a dealer in although not distinctly invoking the prohibition of ex post facto laws as contained in art i 10 cl 1 of the york erred because they ought to have decided that the amendment of 1903 to 550 of the penal code was in certain junk dealers page 226 u s 272 if the act required any defense against the criticism now under consideration this 1903 which made no other change in the section the section as amended was reenacted in the penal law as 1308 226 u s 260 1912 rosenthal v new york no 28 argued november 5 1912 decided december 2 1912 226 u

Diaz Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

that no person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law and no person for consent authorize a tribunal differently composed and not recognized by law to try him and it was held that he could substantial equivalent of the similar right embodied in the sixth amendment by which it should be measured kepner v united states the right of confrontation secured by the philippine civil government act is in the nature of a privilege extended to the is there such a difference in the terms of these sections as naturally implies a difference in meaning but it is v state 33 ala 354 williams v state 61 wis 281 state v polson 29 ia 133 or a statement of