Model Penal Code Test - Judgment Search Results

Parasnath Granite India Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan and anr.

Court: Rajasthan

Reported in: RLW2004(4)Raj2424; [2006]144STC271(Raj); 2004(5)WLC331

even confusedly but when a discrimination is made the word penalty is found to be generic in its character including both of exercise of discretion in imposing penalty not amounting to criminal offence opinion of this court 34 this court in mahaveer when he stated that in the matter of applying the test of mens rea no principle of universal application can be

Amarawati and anr. (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P.

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: 2005(1)AWC416; 2005CriLJ755; (2005)1UPLBEC155

our legal system and hence if any provision of the ipc or crpc seems to violate the provisions in the constitution judicial discretion 19 the word may in section 41 of code of criminal procedure cannot therefore be interpreted as must or 19 of the constitution is not to be applied when testing a law on the anvil of article 21 thus article

Radhavallabh Dhoot Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India

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

Reported in: (2005)58SCL423SAT

us quite clear that s 23c 1 is a highly penal section as it makes a person who was in charge issue before the court such acts may have civil or criminal consequence elsewhere if such conduct at the relevant time makes company includes a firm or other association and the same test must apply to a director in charge of a business

SherafuddIn Vs. State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

Reported in: 2004(2)KLT731

..... tests held after such appointment namely indoorsl no subjectdurationof testmarks maximumminimum 1 2 3 4 5 hrs a 1 the indian penal code250202 the indian penal code withbook 250203 the code ..... order withbook 3100402 criminology250203 scientific aids toinvestigation3100404 forensic medicine25020 d 1 practical model police station1 50252 lifting and developing offinger prints1 1053 casting of foot .....

Mangal and anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2004(3)MPHT438

criminal murder private defence sections 302 and 323 of indian penal code 1860 ipc appellants along with five other persons were appellant mangal has been convicted under section 302 indian penal code and sentenced to imprisonment for life appellant chironjilal has been jj assault proof appellant allegedly dealt sickle blow to deceased testimony of eye witnesses showed that sudden altercation ensued between appellant

Sh. Mahender Singh Chhabra Vs. State of N.C.T. of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 115(2004)DLT174; I(2005)DMC17

circumstances within seven years of marriage under section 304 b ipc offence of rape under section 376 ipc and decoity with section 482 cr p c hereinafter referred to as the code only has been filed by an unfortunate father of a of the accused to murder him was not sent for testing of the handwriting of the deceased 9 in nut shell

Krushna S/O Radheshyam Nanhe Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2004(3)MhLj879

and he is convicted under section 303 i of indian penal code and is sentenced to suffer 10 years imprisonment and does not fall under section 302 of the indian penal code and falls under section 304 1 of the indian penal

Jolen Sober Vs. State of Assam

Court: Guwahati

not entitled to benefits of exception 4 to section 300 ipc 14 in view of the above we find no merit 565 92 for the commission of offence under section 302 ipc and on conclusion of the trial he was convicted under in cross examination the defence has failed to discredit her testimony in any manner her evidence stands corroborated by the other

Smt. Selvi and ors. Vs. State by Koramangala Police Station

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 2004(7)KarLJ501

to hurt as defined under section 319 of the indian penal code but such pain could be caused even when blood or to give effect to an order passed under the code of criminal procedure but the accused have not made out sought permission of the learned magistrate to conduct narco analysis test on accused 1 to 3 that was objected however after

Sridhar Bhuyan Vs. State of Orissa

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2004SC4100; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)604; 2004CriLJ3875; JT2004(6)SC299; 2004(6)SCALE504; (2004)11SCC395

appellant for offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code 1860 in short the i p c and sentence appeal is allowed to the extent indicated criminal indian penal code 1860 sections 300 302 and 304 prosecution of appellant under