citedby: 1328601

Raju vs State Of Kerala

Pointing out that it was for the owner to prove that he had no knowledge about the action of the driver, the learned Government Pleader pointed out that the petitioner had failed to prove the said fact for claiming the benefit of Section 61B(2), as held in the decision reported in State of West Bengal and W.P(C) No.5550 of 2006-I 8 Anr. v. Mahua Sarkar [2008(2) KHC 347(SC) = (2008) 12 SCC 763].

Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P V Asha - Full Document

The Range Forest Officer (Territorial) ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 September, 2019

20.wp.838.19.odt Kumar Rana; (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 129, State of West Bengal Vs. Mahua Sarkar; AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1591, Mohd. Ashique Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2009 (SC) 624, and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.524/2019 (Special Leave Petition) (Crl) No.2001/2012 in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Udaysing decided on 26.03.2019.

Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Ramendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 March, 2013

13. Shri Jain learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner lastly submits that the petitioner's property may be released on payment of a fine as was done in the case of State of West Bengal and another Vs. Mahua Sarkar - (2008) 12 SCC 763.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Akd & Pa To vs Sattar Khan on 14 July, 2017

Moreover, the aforesaid burden is to be discharged by proof of relevant facts and not by mere assertion to that effect [State of West Bengal & Anr. vs. Mahua Sarkar, (2008) 12 SCC 763 (para 9-11)]. The appellate authority failed to apply the law correctly in that regard and had illegally directed interim release of the said vehicle.

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - J Bagchi - Full Document

The Government Of Tamil Nadu vs A.Kannan on 27 March, 2017

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs Mahua Sarkar(2008(12) SCC 763) wherein while dealing with a similar provision in the West Bengal Forest Act, the Supreme Court has held as follows:

Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - D Krishnakumar - Full Document

Rameshbhai Bhimabhai Algotar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2024

[11.0] Now, coming back to the facts, perusing the record it appears that, the confiscation proceedings are initiated considering the possibility of repetition of illegal activity by using the muddamal vehicles. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and K. Krishnan reported in AIR 2000 SC 2729 held that a liberal approach for release of vehicle or equipment involved in aforesaid offences should not be adopted by the Court and the same should not be normally be returned to a party till the culmination of the proceedings in respect of such offences including confiscation proceedings except in exceptional cases. The said view has been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Gopal Sarkar reported in (2002) 1 SCC 495 and State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Mahua Sarkar reported in (2008)12 SCC 7612.

Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sandip Satyaprakash Bansal vs The Range Forest Officer (Prathmesh ... on 9 September, 2019

20.wp.838.19.odt Kumar Rana; (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 129, State of West Bengal Vs. Mahua Sarkar; AIR 2008 Supreme Court 1591, Mohd. Ashique Vs. State of Maharashtra; AIR 2009 (SC) 624, and an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.524/2019 (Special Leave Petition) (Crl) No.2001/2012 in the State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Udaysing decided on 26.03.2019.

Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - M S Patil - Full Document

Vaghabhai Bhojabhai Khatana vs State Of Gujarat on 6 March, 2024

[9.0] Now, coming back to the facts, perusing the record it appears that, the confiscation proceedings are initiated considering the possibility of repetition of illegal activity by using Page 9 of 19 Downloaded on : Thu Mar 07 20:43:32 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION R/SCR.A/2840/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/03/2024 undefined the muddamal vehicle. In this regard, reference is required to be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and K. Krishnan reported in AIR 2000 SC 2729 held that a liberal approach for release of vehicle or equipment involved in aforesaid offences should not be adopted by the Court and the same should not be normally be returned to a party till the culmination of the proceedings in respect of such offences including confiscation proceedings except in exceptional cases. The said view has been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Gopal Sarkar reported in (2002) 1 SCC 495 and State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Mahua Sarkar reported in (2008)12 SCC 7612.

Gujarat High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Vinod Kumar Agrawal on 30 June, 2021

3. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Kerala High Court in the case of Abdul Salam vs. Divisional Forest Officer and Others, reported in 2019 SCC Online Ker 17249, in which citing the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal vs. Mahua Sarkar, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 763, it was held that it is the burden of the owner that the vehicle was being used without his knowledge and connivance without which he has no relief.

Chattisgarh High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R C Samant - Full Document

Jitendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 November, 2021

Said view has been reiterated and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs. Gopal Sarkar, (2002) 1 SCC 495 and State of West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Mahua Sarkar, (2008) 12 SCC 763.

Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - A Pathak - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results