Model Penal Code Test - Judgment Search Results

Parbat Singh @ Partap Singh Vs. the State, Delhi Administration

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 94(2001)DLT290; 2001(59)DRJ712

within the first exception to section 300 of the indian penal code 3 the metal background created by eth previous act the first exception to section 300 of the indian penal code 3 the metal background created by eth previous act of pw17 h c sher singh finds ample corroboration in the testimony of dr l t ramani pw8 he is the autopsy

ishaq Shah Vs. State and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 96(2002)DLT18

munder mfir no section police station remarks m130 99 379 ipc kalkaji discharged m m141 99 379 411 kalkaji no summons that the petitioner threatened the witnesses from tendering evidence in criminal cases pending against him the notice of externment did not is mhazardous to the community and its safety a stringent test must be applied min order to avoid easy possibility of

Anil Kohli Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 95(2002)DLT173; 2002(61)DRJ227

fir no 103 99 under section 406 420 120b indian penal code in short ipc has been sought by anil kohili no 103 99 under section 406 420 120b indian penal code in short ipc has been sought by anil kohili the

Canbank Investment Management Vs. P. Sri Sai Ram

Court: SEBI Securities and Exchange Board of India or Securities Appellate Tribunal SAT

appoint an adjudicating officer for holding an inquiry and impose penalty if so warranted adjudicating officer was appointed on 13 1 sebi s instructions the requirement in clause 9 of the code of conduct in the regulation that trustees and the asset

Anand Chintamani Dighe and anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2001(3)ALLMR151; 2002(1)BomCR57; (2002)1BOMLR671; 2002CriLJ8; 2002(2)MhLj14

punishable under sections 153 a and 295 a of the penal code the exercise of the power of forfeiture under section that the reason why the statutory provision contained in the code of 1898 required the government to state the grounds of filed by the government in the present case are eloquent testimony of how far government has been in the present case

Jasbir Singh Malik Vs. State (Cbi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2002IIAD(Delhi)535; 95(2001)DLT747; 2002(62)DRJ116

ashok kumar was functioning as head constable at police station model town from december 1988 to february 1991 r s yadav r s yadav is also acquitted of all charges indian penal code 1860 sections 34 304 part ii and 342 common s yadav is also acquitted of all charges indian penal code 1860 sections 34 304 part ii and 342 common intention

Lala Ram and ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: [2001(89)FLR1073]; 2002(5)WLC730; 2002(4)WLN281

to further suffer 6 months si under section 323 34 ipc 6 months r i and fine of rs 100 in the appeal stands partly allowed as indicated above criminal procedure code 1973 section 374 2 conviction and sentence under sections 302 falsely implicated disengaging the truth from the falsehood from the testimony of witnesses we find that the quarrel started all of

Ram Preet @ Mithlesh and anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2001CriLJ2434; 91(2001)DLT559; 2001(59)DRJ326

the appellants through superintendent central jail tihar 16 appeal dismissed penal code 1860 section 302 34 murder common intention convicted sentenced appellants through superintendent central jail tihar 16 appeal dismissed penal code 1860 section 302 34 murder common intention convicted sentenced for was arrested thereforee we find no material contradiction in their testimony in fact the statement of ajay bir singh pw 9

Shamnasheb M. Multtani Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2001SC921; 2001(1)ALD(Cri)342; 2001CriLJ1075a; I(2001)DMC332SC; JT2001(2)SC92; 2001(1)SCALE365; [2001]1SCR514; 2001(1)LC719(SC)

a nature that non explanation of it has contributed to penalising an individual the court should say that since he was 379 of the code of criminal procedure for short the code and under section 2 of supreme court enlargement of criminal code it can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not merely that the prescribed punishment

Jhalli Vs. State of M.P.

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2001CriLJ4606; 2001(3)MPHT113

evidence section 376 and 376 2 f g of indian penal code 1860 ipc prosecutrix was minor girl appellant committed rape section 376 and 376 2 f g of indian penal code 1860 ipc prosecutrix was minor girl appellant committed rape with margin of 2 years either side in case of ossification test thus the age of the prosecutrix if margin of two