Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Hakim Singh And Anr. on 17 April, 1972

State Of M.P. vs Tehseeldar Singh And Others on 20 August, 2014

(9) That apart, it is well settled that in acquittal appeals, interference is warranted only when it is found that the reasons given by the trial Court for acquittal are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. As discussed above, there is no evidence at all against the accused-respondents to connect them with the alleged offences. The view taken 6 Cri.A.No.467/01 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim Singh) by the trial Court is thus reasonable, plausible and possible view from the evidence recorded. Hence, the judgment and order impugned in the appeal therefore does not require any interference by this court from any of the corners.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roop Singh Alawa vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 1 May, 2025

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while projecting the case of the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 dated 13.03.2014 levelling the charge that on 09.11.2012 in pending Sessions Trial No. 248/2010 (State of M.P. Vs. Hakim and others) with corrupt or oblique motive or for some extraneous consideration the petitioner allowed the bail application of the accused Hakim facing accusation under Sections 302, 120-B and 147 of IPC which was after rejection of his four successive bail applications by the High Court on 09.03.2011, 09.12.2011, 17.02.2012 and 17.09.2012. However, despite the High Court having repeatedly dismissed the bail applications of the same accused, the grant of bail Signature Not Verified Signed by: 453 Signing time: 02-05- 2025 11:03:04 3 by the petitioner to said accused person was alleged to be against judicial discipline and propriety and therefore, he was alleged to have failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty expected of a judicial officer. Therefore, on such allegations, he was visited with the charge sheet.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S Surinder & Company vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 October, 2008

This Court need not go into this question as there is concurrent finding of fact by the two Courts below that the letter of withdrawal had not reached the Authorities, therefore, the acceptance is binding. It is the case of the plaintiff that the letter withdrawing the bid was posted on 13.3.1991, whereas letter of acceptance had been issued on 15.3.1991. Therefore, it could not be assumed that the letter had reached before communication of acceptance was issued. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel on Union of India & Others v. M/s Bhimsen Walaiti Ram AIR 1971 Supreme Court 2295 to say that final bid which is subject to confirmation can be withdrawn. To fortify this, further reliance has been placed upon The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Hakim Singh and Another AIR 1973 Madhya Pradesh 24 wherein it has been held that the contract is is not complete till confirmation and a bidder can withdraw before the confirmation. These judgments can be of no help to the petitioner as they depend upon a question of fact "whether letter of withdrawal had reached the Authorities who had to grant the approval?"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Hakim Singh vs State Of M.P. on 20 March, 2026

This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 03.02.2005 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Morena in Sessions Trial No.23/2000 (State of M.P. vs. Hakim Singh and Others), whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 308 Part 2 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - M R Phadke - Full Document

Hakim Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 24 June, 2010

This application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed to quash the order dated 20.4.2010 passed by A.C.J.M. Ist, Etawah and stay further criminal proceeding in case no.3679 of 2007 State Vs. Hakim Singh and another u/s 323, 324, 504 and 506 IPC, P.S. Barhpura Since the alleged witness P.W.2 was cross-examined in the presence of accused. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the examination-in-chief of the witness was recorded in the absence of accused.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - V Singh - Full Document
1