Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 81 (2.29 seconds)
Documents citing Satpal & Another vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 1 May, 2000

Ca No. 61/05 1 Satpal vs State on 14 May, 2007

In fact, he testified that he could not see as to whether the front part of the said CA No. 61/05 4 Satpal Vs State tempo hit the cycle. Therefore, it is clear that by examining PW1, prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that as to whether the applicant was rash or negligent in driving the tempo. Possibility of a pure accident in the present case cannot be ruled out. I, therefore, give benefit of doubt to the accused and acquit him. Bail bond surety bond cancelled.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Verma vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 April, 2023

In a Division Bench decision of this Court in Satpal Vs. State of Haryana (2000) 5 SCC 170, these very grounds have been restated as: (i) the Governor exercising the power under Article 161 himself without being advised by the Government; or (ii) the Governor transgressing his jurisdiction; or (iii) the Governor passing the order without application of mind; or (iv) the Governor's decision is based on some extraneous consideration; or (v) mala fides.
Allahabad High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Harishankar ,Gayaprasad Jaiswal vs State Of Gujarat on 8 March, 2018

30.   There   is   no  dispute  to   the   settled   legal   proposition   that   the   power   exercised   under   Articles   72/161   could   be   the   subject­matter   of   limited   judicial review, (vide Kehar Singh, (AIR 1989 SC 653) (supra); Ashok   Kumar (AIR 1991 SC 1792 : 1991 AIR SCW 1826) (supra); Swaran  Singh v. State of U.P. AIR 1998 SC 2026  : (1998 AIR SCW 1880);   Satpal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors. AIR 2000 SC 1702 :
Gujarat High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Veero vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 December, 2005

10. The essential components of Section 304B, I.P.C. are: (i) a death of a woman occurring otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years of marriage, (ii) before her death she should have been subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand of dowry. When the above ingredients are fulfilled the husband of his relatives, who subjected her to such cruelty or harassment can be presumed to be guilty of offence under Section 304B. The prosecution is expected to show that soon before the occurrence there was cruelty or harasssment and only in that case presumption operates. Evidence in that regard has to be led by the prosecution.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Peter James Gifran Von Kalkestein ... vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 20 September, 2002

93. Both in Swaran Singh (supra) and Satpal (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the orders of the Governor passed under Article 161, it is clear that the Court found that vital and crucial facts were not placed before the Governor and the order was based on totally misleading facts. In such a case the order loses its character as an order passed on objective facts by one of the highest Constitutional authority and the Court was entitled to correct it. Such interference by the Court is within the limited scope pointed out in Maru Ram (1980 Cri LJ 1440) and Kehar Singh (1989 Cri LJ 941) and the Apex Court exercised its power within those limits. In this case, it cannot be said that relevant facts were not brought to the notice of the authority while the prayer made on behalf of Mr. Bleach was considered. So the principles in Satpal (2000 Cri LJ 2297) and Swaran Singh are not attracted here.
Calcutta High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 1 - A K Ganguly - Full Document

Dinesh Seth And Ors. vs State on 2 May, 2003

In the case of Pyare Lal v. State of Haryana, and Satpal v. State of Haryana, , the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 304B IPC because the fact that deceased was treated with cruelty soon before her death for or in connection with the dowry was not established from the evidence on record. The appellant was convicted under Section 498A IPC. In the present case evidence regarding the visit of PW-1 and PW-6 to the matrimonial home of Rama or regarding the visit of Rama to her parental home oh 21/22.11.86 is quite shaky, discrepant and unworthy of credit. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, recorded the finding of guilt without minutely examining the evidence on this specific issue namely whether Rama was treated with cruelty soon before her death. Since one of the essential ingredients of Section 304B IPC remains unproved in this case, the accused cannot be convicted under Section 304B IPC. Evidence on record (testimonies of PW 7/14/ and 24) clearly makes out an offence under Section 498A IPC against accused Dinesh Seth only for which he can be convicted although he was not specifically charged under Section 498A IPC. The ingredient of the Section 498A are included in the ingredient under Section 304B IPC. Therefore, even if there is no specific charge under Section 498A IPC, the appellant Dinesh Seth can be convicted for the said offence.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - O P Dwivedi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next