Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 198 (5.68 seconds)
Documents citing Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 1997

Nitin Deshpande vs Registrar, University Of Mumbai And 4 ... on 11 December, 2014

In the same way we have no hesitation in holding that the reliance on the decisions in Babu and ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1965 SC 1467] and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.T. Appaiah and Anr. [AIR 1981 SC 365]., Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 156], Sajjan Singh and ors. vs. State of M.P. [(1999) 1 SCC 315] and Radha Mohan Singh Alias Lal Saheb and ors. vs. State of UP [(2006) 2 SCC 450] is totally misplaced.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A Prabhudessai - Full Document

Nitin Gorakhnath Sartape vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 2024

G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 24 (2005) 11 SCC 600 S.Q. Pathan / N.S. Chitnis 675/867 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2024 14:24:58 ::: J-Apeals-707-2019-group.doc SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof."
Bombay High Court Cites 167 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Hitesh Shantilal Solanki @ Dhabbu And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 2024

G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 24 (2005) 11 SCC 600 S.Q. Pathan / N.S. Chitnis 675/867 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2024 14:28:14 ::: J-Apeals-707-2019-group.doc SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof."
Bombay High Court Cites 167 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Shailendra Dhoopnarayan Pandey @ Pinky ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 2024

G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 24 (2005) 11 SCC 600 S.Q. Pathan / N.S. Chitnis 675/867 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2024 14:36:15 ::: J-Apeals-707-2019-group.doc SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof."
Bombay High Court Cites 167 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Prakash Ganpat Kadam vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 2024

G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 24 (2005) 11 SCC 600 S.Q. Pathan / N.S. Chitnis 675/867 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2024 14:42:22 ::: J-Apeals-707-2019-group.doc SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof."
Bombay High Court Cites 167 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Sandip S/O Hemraj Sardar (Prisoner) vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 March, 2024

G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 24 (2005) 11 SCC 600 S.Q. Pathan / N.S. Chitnis 675/867 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2024 14:45:29 ::: J-Apeals-707-2019-group.doc SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof."
Bombay High Court Cites 167 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

Ramprasad Vishwanath Gupta vs Tanaji Bhausaheb Desai Adn Ors on 19 March, 2024

G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 24 (2005) 11 SCC 600 S.Q. Pathan / N.S. Chitnis 675/867 ::: Uploaded on - 19/03/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 20/03/2024 14:50:33 ::: J-Apeals-707-2019-group.doc SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof."
Bombay High Court Cites 167 - Cited by 0 - R M Dere - Full Document

@ Nikar Yadav @ Nikara Yadav vs The State Of West Bengal on 6 October, 2010

In this connection it would be most worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia Vs. State of Gujarat (supra) followed by the decision of a three judges bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit Vs. State of Maharahtra, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 35.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - A K Roy - Full Document

Sajjan Singh, Dule Singh And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 1998

In Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat (1997 (7) SCC 156 ) the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. On an appeal by the appellant the Division was divided. One Judge was for allowing the appeal the other for dismissing the same. When the matter was referred to the third Judge under Section 392 of the Code he agreed that appeal be dismissed and upheld the conviction of the appellant. When the matter came to this Court an argument was raised that in view of finding of one of the members of the Division Bench that the appellant was entitled to acquittal, such view in favour of acquittal, as a rule of prudence, should be accepted by he third Judge hearing the appeal under Section 392 of the Code. This court considered the scope and ambit of Section 392 and the question of acceptance of the view in favour of acquittal, as rule of prudence or on the score of judicial etiquette by the third Judge. This Court referred to all the earlier decisions of this Court as were rendered under Section 429 of the old Code and Section 392 of the present Code and held as under : -
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 53 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Sajjan Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 1998

In Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 156 : (1997 AIR SCW 2055) the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I. P. C. On an appeal by the appellant the Division Bench was divided. One Judge was for allowing the appeal, the other for dismissing the same. When the matter was referred to the third Judge under Section 392 of the Code he agreed that appeal be dismissed and upheld the conviction of the appellant. When the matter came to this Court an argument was raised that in view of finding of one of the members of the Division Bench that the appellant was entitled to acquittal, such view in favour of acquittal, as a Rule of prudence, should be accepted by the third Judge hearing the appeal under Section 392 of the Code. This Court considered the scope and ambit of Section 392 and the question of acceptance of the view in favour of acquittal, as Rule of prudence or on the score of judicial etiquette by the third Judge. This Court referred to all the earlier decisions of this Court as were rendered under Section 429 of the old Code and Section 392 of the present Code and held as under' (Paras 5 to 7 of AIR) :-
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next