Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 293 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing K.T.M.S. Mohd. And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April, 1992

G. Balaji vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 September, 2006

In that case, where the detaining authority failed to give a specific conclusion on the retracted statement, which is opposed to the decision of the Supreme Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd. and another vs. Union of India (cited supra). In such situation, the Bench has concluded that, "13. ...... mere reference to retraction is not sufficient and that it is incumbent on the part of the Detaining Authority to record his opinion before accepting the inculpatory statement, otherwise, the order will be vitiated. "
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pawan Kumar Didwani vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 30 August, 1994

One of such decisions is reported in Judgment Today 1992(3) SC 129 (K.T.M.S. Mohammed and Anr. v. Union of India). This decision of the Supreme Court was relied by Mr. Sen only to convince me that as the investigation or proceeding under Section 40 of the FERA is deemed to be a judicial proceeding by a legal fiction embodied under Section 40(4) of the FERA, it must be construed that presence of a lawyer for such judicial proceeding cannot be ruled out. This decision of the Supreme Court, in my view, has no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. Firstly, in that decision the Supreme Court was dealing with a case under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and was not at all concerned with the question that is now in hand. Mr. Sen relied on paragraph 22 of the said decision to show that since an investigation or proceeding under Section 40 of the FERA is deemed to be a judicial proceeding, therefore, there is no bar that a lawyer cannot be permitted to be present during interrogation under Section 40 of the FERA. Paragraph 22 (Para 21 at page 361 of 40 ECC) of the said judgment reads as follows:
Calcutta High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jayendra Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2 Wpcr/8/2018 B. ... on 21 October, 2019

"6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "the I.P.C."); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against Page No.13 public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340 (1) of the Cr.P.C., having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Another Vs. Union of India). The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - R C Samant - Full Document

Jayeshbhai Niranjanbhai Dholakia & 2 vs State Of Gujarat & on 8 March, 2017

48 In   the   result,   this   application   is   allowed.   The   First   Information  Report   registered   as   the   M.   Case   No.1   of   2016   at   the   Ghogha   Road  Police Station pursuant to the order passed by the 8th  Additional Chief  Judicial Magistrate, Bhavnagar dated 1st August 2016 is hereby quashed.  The   order   passed   by   the   6th  Additional   Chief   Judicial   Magistrate,  Bhavnagar in the Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2016 affirming the order  dated 1st  August 2016 is also hereby quashed. Rule is made absolute.  Direct service is permitted.
Gujarat High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 3 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

B.L.Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 May, 2024

117-18, paras 6-8) "6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial Signature Not Verified Signed by: SHUBHANKAR MISHRA Signing time: 30-May-24 5:13:50 PM 17 W.P. No.745/2013 proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India.) The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - G S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Sada Kesava Reddy vs The Dy Commissioner Income Tax Rep By Spl ... on 31 October, 2022

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the case would fall under the second proviso of Section 276-CC of Income Tax Act. The punishment under the declaration was linked to tax evaded, in the absence of determination of tax; the question of launching of prosecution would not arise, the petitioner was claiming refund in the present case, the complaint was 2 (1992) 2 SCC Criminal 314 9 Dr.GRR, J CRLRC_2922_2017 pre-mature and there was no discovery by the department with regard to evasion of tax by the petitioner-accused and relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Another v. Union of India3, Sasi Enterprises v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax4 and of The High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Rameshwar Prasad Sunderlal and Others v. Union of India (UOI)5 .
Telangana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Ratna Kumar vs Principal Director Of Income Tax ... on 7 February, 2018

17. In all the above cited cases filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Revisionist, the facts therein reveal that there was an Assessment Order/Tribunal Order which upheld the stand taken by the Assessees and further that there was no tax liability. The order of the Income Tax Officer in K. T. M. S. Mohammed Vs. Union of India (supra) and the order of the Appellate Tribunal in K. C. Builders Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) were held conclusive and 12 therefore prosecution could not be sustained. In the present case, there is no such order from the Tribunal in favour of the Revisionist /accused to support her contention.
Delhi District Court Cites 29 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next