Model Penal Code Test - Judgment Search Results

United States Vs. Bailey

Court: US Supreme Court

..... parallel definitions of the crime of escape both in the model penal code and in a proposed revision of the federal criminal code see model penal code 2 02 3 242 6 1 report of senate committee ..... wall is passed page 444 u s 428 the court s own phrasing of its test demonstrates that it is deciding factual questions that should be presented to the jury it .....

Gopiram and Ajandas Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: 1980WLN83

under going the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof penal code section 417 amp 471 accused using forged high school going the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof penal code section 417 amp 471 accused using forged high school certificate case therefore the court has not acted on the sole testimony of the hand writing expert the approach of the learned

Atma Singh Vs. the State of Punjab

Court: Punjab and Haryana

Reported in: 1980CriLJ1226

penal code and not under section 326 of the indian penal code it has been canvassed on behalf of the appellant in clause eighthly of section 320 of the indian penal code and therefore an injury which is described by the doctor bears proximate relation to the risk of life applying that test to the facts of the case in hand it bears

P. Pathrakah Nadachi Vs. V. Subbiah Nadar

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1981Mad287; (1981)1MLJ463

the rules of law applicable to intestate succession among the indian christians in travancore and the legislation had not interfered with regards the christian converts for whom it established a fresh code of rules of succession in substitution of hindu law abraharn

Rummel Vs. Estelle

Court: US Supreme Court

sentence of imprisonment for an extended term is warranted ali model penal code 7 03 prop off draft 1962 the term tex penal code ann p 688 1974 in 1973 texas penal code ann art 1413 provided the taking must be wrongful ch 676 688 690 p 181 see n y penal code 70 04 70 06 70 10 mckinney 1975 and supp incorporated into the bill after the senate judiciary committee heard testimony that a sentencing authority considering the punishment due a dangerous

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. P.K. Banerjee (Decd., by Legal Represen ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1981SC401; (1980)19CTR(SC)376; [1980]125ITR641(SC); (1981)1SCC63; [1981]1SCR657; 1980(12)LC934(SC)

held right of assessee cannot be treated as annuity indian penal code 1890 section 300 thirdly exception 4 s b sinha right of assessee cannot be treated as annuity indian penal code 1890 section 300 thirdly exception 4 s b sinha r in the capital of the trust fund therefore upon the test laid down by jenkins l j in duke of norfolk

Gendra Brahma and ors. Vs. the State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

six accused were acquitted of the offence under section 120b penal code 2 all the five accused who were convicted and against six accused under sections 120b 302 and 201 penal code the committing magistrate after preliminary enquiry committed them to the whether it is true and trustworthy satisfaction of the first test is a sine qua non for its admissibility in evidence

Ashok Narhari Naik Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: (1980)3SCC91

under sections 323 149 323 34 and 147 of the penal code the appellant alone was found guilty of the capital alternative under sections 302 and 302 34 of the penal code 3 on june 17 1972 the deceased dindi gave a of independent corroboration in his opinion the evidence of the test identification parade also was not satisfactory he therefore accorded the

Asstt. Collector of Customs Vs. Harbans Lal Sharaf

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 1980CriLJ618

was inter alia under section 120 b of the indian penal code read with section 167 81 of the act and into an offence under any central act other than the code of criminal procedure 1973 the central government may direct the out that charles maloney saw the respondent once and no test identification parade for getting the respondent identified by charles maloney

Balkishan A. Devidayal Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1981SC379; (1980)82BOMLR471; 1980CriLJ1424; (1980)4SCC600; [1981]1SCR175

be taken to the nearest police station section 17 provides penalties for neglect of duty etc section 20 gives protection to trial because of the bar in section 162 criminal procedure code 16 as against the above shri nain submits that an the appellant in view of the constitutional ban against compelled testimony imposed by article 20 3 of the constitution the argument