Section 252 - Judgment Search Results

Umayyathantagatu Puthen Veetil Kunhi Kadir Vs. Emperor

Court: Chennai

Reported in: 65Ind.Cas.859

..... cases and no doubt the first incident in the trial of such a case under section 252 is to be that the magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant if any the ..... trial without the examination of the complainant on oath is irregular the expression used in section 252 is hear the complainant the taking of evidence is separately referred to we have been .....

In Re: Umayyathantagath Puthen Veetil Kunhi Kadir

Court: Chennai

Reported in: AIR1922Mad126; (1922)42MLJ108

..... the first incident in the trial of such a case under section 252 is to be that the magistrate shall proceed to hear the ..... of the complainant on oath is irregular the expression used in section 252 is hear the complainant the taking of evidence is separately referred ..... that proceedings shall be taken in respect of a particular section or sections and no other we agree further that it would be .....

P.E. Billinghurst Vs. D.B. Meek

Court: Kolkata

Reported in: AIR1922Cal334,61Ind.Cas.993

..... contended that the prosecution having failed to produced evidence as required by section 252 of the criminal procedure code he is entitled under section 253 to his discharge11 it however appears that from the 10th ..... before the chief presidency magistrate charging five persons with the commission of offenses punishable under sections 420 and 120b of the indian penal code 2 the prosecution was at the .....

Frey and Son, Inc. Vs. Cudahy

Court: US Supreme Court

pointed out in the case of schrader s son inc 252 u s 99 here the state of the evidence as

United States Vs. Phellis

Court: US Supreme Court

to apply the tests laid down in eisner v macomber 252 u s 189 252 u s 207 a gain derived

St. Louis, I.M. and S. Ry. Co. Vs. J. F. Hasty and Sons

Court: US Supreme Court

ry co v j f hasty sons 255 u s 252 1921 st louis iron mountain southern railway company v j

Crescent Cotton Oil Co. Vs. Mississippi

Court: US Supreme Court

york central r co v mohney 252 u s 152 252 u s 155 when the ginning is completed the operator

Miller and Lux Vs. Sacramento Drainage District

Court: US Supreme Court

u s 254 writ of error to review 182 cal 252 dismissed petition for a writ of certiorari denied the case

Walsh Vs. Brewster

Court: US Supreme Court

the stockholder p 255 u s 538 eisner v macomber 252 u s 189 268 f 207 reversed in part and

Kahn Vs. Anderson

Court: US Supreme Court

to sustain that proposition is placed on caldwell v parker 252 u s 376 since that case involved no question of