See Akula Ravinder V State - Judgment Search Results

Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC1454; 2008(16)SCALE168; 2009AIRSCW928; 2009(1)LHSC19

case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P. : AIR1991SC1142 . Section 498A IPC and Section 113A of the Evidence Act include in their

T. Aruntperunjothi Vs. State Through S.H.O., Pondicherry

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2006SC2475; 102(2006)CLT95(SC); 2006CriLJ3290; I(2006)DMC698SC; [2007(1)JCR364(SC)]; JT2006(4)SC300; RLW2006(4)SC2809; 2006(4)SCALE103; (2006)9SCC467

mentioned in Section 498A. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P. : AIR1991SC1142 ) Period of operation of Section 113A of the Evidence Act is seven years,

Mr.N.Ansari vs State of Kerala

Court: Kerala

case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P. [1991 Supp (2) SCC 99 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 990 : AIR 1991 SC 1142] )

Laxmi NaraIn @ Rajesh Vs. State

Court: Delhi

case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P. (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 99). Section 498-A IPC and Section 113-A of the Evidence Act include

Gopal Pathak and ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Madhya Pradesh

Reported in: 2008CriLJ3551

mentioned in Section 498-A. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder v. State of A.P. : AIR1991SC1142 ). Period of operation of Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is seven years,

Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs. State of Bihar

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2005SC785; 2005(1)ALD(Cri)575; 2005(1)BLJR311; 2005CriLJ1418; I(2005)DMC321SC; JT2005(2)SC218; (2005)2SCC388; 2005(1)LC390(SC)

mentioned in Section 498A. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR1991SC1142 . Period of operation of Section 113B of

Balwant Singh and ors. Vs. State of H.P.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: 2008CriLJ4683; 2008(13)SCALE50; 2008AIRSCW6372; 2008(4)Crimes64

case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR1991SC1142 . Section 498A IPC and Section 113B of

M. Srinivasulu Vs. State of A.P.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2007SC3146; II(2007)DMC693SC; (2008)149PLR321; RLW2008(1)SC770; 2007(11)SCALE12; 2007AIRSCW5697

case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR1991SC1142 ). Section 498A IPC and Section 113B of

Rajendran and anr. Vs. State Asstt. Commnr. of Police Law and Order

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC855; RLW2009(2)SC1388; 2008AIRSCW8162; 2008(6)LHSC4177

case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR1991SC1142 ). Section 498A IPC and Section 113B of

Gopal Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR2009SC1928; JT2009(2)SC419; RLW2009(1)SC483; 2009(2)SCALE704; 2009AIRSCW1538

case is made out. If the case is established, there can be a conviction under both the sections. (See Akula Ravinder and Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh : AIR1991SC1142 ). Section 498A IPC and Section 113B of