See Pritam Singh V State - Judgment Search Results

M.sivadasan (dead) Through Lrs. Vs. A.soudamini (d) Through Lrs And Ot ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

challenge is not interfered with. We do not find any special circumstances here which may warrant our interference. [See Pritam Singh v. State, AIR (1950) SC169 (1950) SCR453 Hem Raj v. State of Ajmer AIR (1954) SC462 (1954) SCR81133, Bengal Chemical

State of U.P. Vs. Prabhat Kumar Trivedi

Court: Allahabad

Reported in: AIR1966All349; 1966CriLJ737

C. 11. However, it is settled law that the principle of res judicata applies to criminal cases also (See Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab : 1956CriLJ805 . In that case Pritam Singh Lohara and others were tried for an offence

L.R. Naidu Vs. State of Karnataka

Court: Karnataka

Reported in: 1984(1)KarLJ475

started outside the jurisdiction of this Court.' 13. The Delhi High Court has also taken the same view (see Pritam singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 Cri LJ NOC 159). 14. For the reasons mentioned above there is no merit in

Aher Raja Khima Vs. the State of Saurashtra

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: AIR1956SC217; 1956CriLJ426; (1956)IMLJ135(SC); [1955]2SCR1285; MANU/SC/0040/1955

usefully be referred to for indicating the area of interference. The question was considered by this Court in Pritam Singh v. The State(3), where the law was thus laid down: "On a careful examination of article 136 along with … were at least suspected, especially as one of the points made against the appellant is that he was seen sharpening an axe on the evening of the murder and Meraman, P.W. II, says that not only was

Nana Gangaram Dhorb Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1969)71BOMLR375

discussed by the Supreme Court in Krishna Govind's case.24. The next judgment relied upon by Mr. Deshmukh is Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. [1856] S.C. 415. In that case, Pritam Singh, the appellant was first tried and acquitted … 1 to go to the lenddara land for grazing- the cattle. Babu Pavalya said that he had not seen this land and could not take the cattle there unless the land was pointed out. Arrangements were made

Mastanshah Didarshah Fakir Vs. Umarshah Hattushah Fakir

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR820; 1970MhLJ587

of 1966, decided by Padhye J., on January 19, 1967 (Unrep.) had also taken a view relying on Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab A.I.R. [1956] S.C. 415 that certain judgments in criminal trials which were being considered by him … their revision was dismissed and the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate was confirmed. The opponents did not then seek recourse to establish their right in a civil Court.3. In spite of this declaration by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Prakash Ramnath Adurkar Vs. Ganesh Waman Athawale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1976)78BOMLR328

from the judgment of the earlier Bench of that Court as well as the Calcutta High Court. In Pritam Singh v. State : AIR1969All513 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court has taken the view that an order of

Bhaurao Dagadu Thakur Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1972)74BOMLR304; 1972MhLJ604

Judges.13. Reliance by Mr. Khare on the following passage in the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab : 1956CriLJ805 quoting from [1950] A.C. 458 is thoroughly misplaced:The effect of a verdict of acquittal … of the municipal Courts-civil or criminal-is part of the rule of law enshrined in our Constitution. Presumably this seems to have weighed on the minds of the learned Judges, while making these observations; but now-a-days municipal Courts

L.R. Melwani Vs. the State of Maharashtra

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1967)69BOMLR421

they fitted each other.The dicta in Sambasivam's case were completely and fully approved by the Supreme Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab. : 1956CriLJ805 . In Pritam Singh's case the accused was acquitted of the charge under Section … the same day stating that the two 'LE' cases originally examined were left behind. It would thus be seen that the allegations on which the present prosecution has been launched covers a wider canvass of facts as

The Assistant Commissioner of Customs Vs. L.R. Melwani

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: (1970)72BOMLR782

fact that they fitted each other.The rule laid down in that decision was adopted by this Court in Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab : 1956CriLJ805 and again in N.H. Ghose v. The State of West Bengal : 1960CriLJ289 . … directed the learned Magistrate to summon those statements and curiously enough, it went further and directed him to see that the prosecution made available the copies of those statements to the accused before the commencement of the