Model Penal Code Test - Judgment Search Results

Ghanashyam Jena Vs. State of Orissa

Court: Orissa

Reported in: 2003CriLJ4794

against the petitioner under section 120 b of the indian penal code cannot subsist shall decide the issue 7 the apex allowed criminal criminal conspiracy section 120 b of indian penal code 1860 ipc petitioner secretary of worker s union with other

Savitri Devi Vs. Ramesh Chand and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2003CriLJ2759; 104(2003)DLT824; II(2003)DMC328; 2003(69)DRJ6

order be sent to law secretary union of india indian penal code 1860 section 406 498a husband or relative of husband be sent to law secretary union of india indian penal code 1860 section 406 498a husband or relative of husband of received these allegations when tested on the anvil of aforesaid tests do not make out a case of either cruelty or

Scheidler Vs. National Organization for Women, Inc.

Court: US Supreme Court

property from respondents both of the sources congress used as models in formulating the hobbs act the new york penal code statutory and it was clearly defined in the new york penal code as a separate and lesser offense than extortion when in which the term is now used in the criminal codes of most states 495 u s at 598 accordingly where

Sushil Murmu Vs. State of Jharkhand

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2004SC394; 2004(1)ALD(Cri)275; 2004(1)BLJR195; 2004CriLJ658; [2005(3)JCR193(SC)]; JT2003(10)SC340; 2003(10)SCALE670; (2004)2SCC338

principles revolving round the question of death sentence criminal indian penal code 1860 sections 149 201 and 302 criminal procedure code sentence the amendment of section 367 5 of the old code does not affect the law regulating punishment under ipc this the answers to the questions posed by way of the test for the rarest of rare cases the circumstances of the

State of Gujarat Vs. Surendrapal Shivabalakpal

Court: Gujarat

Reported in: (2004)3GLR628

the death sentence which are as under i the extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases contained in sections 253 2 and 354 3 of the code of criminal procedure in other words the extreme penalty can is true that on this point there is an interested testimony of all the witnesses who are closely related to each

Ponnammal Vs. Subburaman and anr.

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 2003(3)CTC385; (2003)3MLJ191

specific nature and to award wherever appropriate compensation to consumers penalties for non compliance of the orders given by the quasi position vis a vis rule 10 of order viii of code of civil procedure the trial court could have exercised discretion of which is sufficient to validate the proceeding the other test which can be employed to determine whether the provision is

Lawrence Vs. Texas

Court: US Supreme Court

..... have been apparent when bowers was decided in 1955 the american law institute promulgated the model penal code and made clear that it did not recommend or provide for criminal penalties for consensual ..... overruling bowers to the extent it sustained georgia s antisodomy statute under the rational basis test though there is discussion of fundamental proposition s ante at 565 and fundamental decisions .....

Mamta Kulkarni Vs. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(2)MhLj179

..... sheristedar of this court i criminal obscenity section 292 of indian penal code 1860 obscenity of picture can hardly be decided by oral ..... grade those pictures are used for advertising even such pictures and models are exhibited in tv advertisements even movie pictures are also ..... of human beings therefore too conservative approach cannot stand the test of time it would be going too away from normal .....

Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak Vs. State of Gujarat

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2003SC2855; 2003(2)ALT(Cri)251; 2003CriLJ3723; (2004)1GLR456; 2003(2)JKJ656[SC]; JT2003(6)SC189; 2003(5)SCALE469; (2003)9SCC322; 2003(2)LC1346(SC)

without merit and deserves dismissal we direct so criminal indian penal code section 302 300 evidence of eyewitness conviction based on guilty of offence punishable under section 302 of indian penal code 1860 for short ipc and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for surat ten witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version testimony of pws 1 and 3 was accepted to be credible

Anant S/O Ramchandra Pundlik and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: I(2004)DMC36; 2004(1)MhLj831

5 thereafter since the offence under section 498a of indian penal code could not be compounded the parties have thought it criminal application filed under section 482 of the criminal procedure code for quashing criminal case no 201 of 2001 pending before avail of that benefit because they have already submitted the testimonial have paid their fees and the courses have commenced in