Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 Section 3 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: criminal law amendment act 2013 section 3 Court: rajasthan jodhpur Page 1 of about 317 results (2.327 seconds)Smt.Mamta Vs. State
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... whereby the learned magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under section 3 1 6 of the criminal law amendment act 1961 the order taking cognizance has been assailed on the ground that the ..... rajasthan s b cr misc petition no 2304 2013 whereby this court quashed an identical complaint preferred against one pukhraj mali 4 s b criminal misc petition no 1708 2014 smt mamta .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSurendra Vs. State of Rajasthan
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
on condition of full disclosure section 8 2 of the criminal law amendment act is enabling without recourse to it an condition of full disclosure section 8 2 of the criminal law amendment act is enabling without recourse to it an accused of full disclosure section 8 2 of the criminal law amendment act is enabling without recourse to it an accused person his self confessed participation in the crime without taking any active part in it is unacceptable the approver has claimed to to the offence 4 a person accepting pardon under sub section 1 is to be examined as a witness in the judgment which is quoted hereunder 11 from the aforesaid section 306 it can be stated that 1 the purpose of the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTShiva @ Savaram Vs. State
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... offences act has been raped section 309 of the criminal procedure code was amended by the parliament vide the criminal law amendment bill 2012 i e bill no 63 of 2013 proviso to section 309 cr p c reads as under 3 .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSanchita Gupta @ Shilpi Vs. State
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... offences act has been raped section 309 of the criminal procedure code was amended by the parliament vide the criminal law amendment bill 2012 i e bill no 63 of 2013 proviso to section 309 cr p c reads as under 3 .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMohd. Umar and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
of syed mohd ahmed kazmi versus state gnctd and ors criminal appeal no 1695 1697 of 2012 slp crl nos 6965 followed by charge sheet is nullity in the eyes of law and accordingly cognizance of offence will have no legal value that the nia act 2008 and the unlawful activities prevention amendment act 2008 were enacted by parliament on 31 12 2008 person accused of having committed an offence punishable under this act 5 notwithstanding anything contained in the code no person accused ministry of home affairs government of india exercising powers under section 6 of the nia act declaring the offence to be district and sessions judge jaipur in cr misc petition no 3798 2014 the challenge to the aforesaid orders have been made
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSmt Champa and ors Vs. Roop Lal
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... the code of criminal procedure 1973 2 of 1974 before the amendment of the family courts amendment act 1991 3 every appeal under this section shall be ..... order passed by the learned single judge dated 17th july 2013 is reproduced as under in this matter all the three ..... single judge except as provided by these rules or other law the following cases shall ordinarily be admitted heard and disposed .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTLalit Shanker Vs. Smt,sunder Bai
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
..... under chapter ix of the code of criminal procedure 1973 2 of 1974 before the commencement of the family courts amendment act 1991 3 every appeal under this section shall be preferred within a period ..... by the learned single judge in the order dated 17 07 2013 in our view on the existing scheme of law applicable this matter could not have been sent to the division .....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTVikas Verma @ Vicky and Ors Vs. State
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
acts and to make consequential amendments to the code of criminal procedure 1973 it is clear from the above the concern of the evidence act are not complied with as the law now stands in india 23 the appellant admittedly has not a had been introduced in the ipc by virtue of amendment act 42 of 1993 the statement of objects and reasons fulfilled for ready reference section 65 b of the evidence act is reproduced hereunder 65 b admissibility of electronic records 1 be also a document if the conditions mentioned in this section are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in again 34 it is relevant to point out that section 364 a had been introduced in the ipc by virtue of
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMahendra Singh @ Happy Vs. State
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
respondents vikas verma vicky v state of rajasthan d b criminal appeal no 565 of2005appellant respondents mahendra singh happy v state and cadres have assumed serious dimensions the existing provisions of law have proved to be inadequate as deterrence the law commission punishment to persons committing such acts and to make consequential amendments to the code of criminal procedure 1973 it is clear the requirement of law that death or even hurt should actually be caused for the offence to fall under section 364a they have not been proved in accordance with provisions of section 65 b of the evidence act exhibit p180 is itemized accused appellants were convicted for offences under sections 365 364a 392 and 120b ipc and sentenced as under sec 365 ipc
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPrakash Chand Vs. State
Court : Rajasthan Jodhpur
dated 13 6 2000 was made effective from s b criminal misc petition no 1330 2006 prakash chand vs state of before date in capital letters on that day the criminal law which increases the rigour of punishment or creates a new capital letters was introduced for the first time by an amendment in the prevention of food adulteration rules introduced through a exercise of its power under section 22 a of the act whereby the notification dated 13 6 2000 was made effective government issued another notification in exercise of its power under section 22 a of the act whereby the notification dated 13 on the packet in capital letters as required by rule 32 i of the prevention of food adulteration rules the petitioner
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT