Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (2.97 seconds)
Documents citing Richard Saldana And Ors. vs State on 13 November, 1959

Amit Kumar vs State on 15 July, 2023

"11. This apart, even if the statement of Pasradi and Shripat that they were assaulted while undertaking return journey to the office is taken at its face value, no offence under Section 353 of the IPC would be made out as travelling by virtue of office is not a part of duty (See. Richard Saldana v. State 1960 Cri LJ 828 that has been followed in Mohammed Kutty v. State of Kerala 2004 Cri.L.J. 1603).
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohammed Kutty vs State Of Kerala on 27 October, 2003

In Richard Saldana and Ors. v. State (AIR 1960 Kerala 200) this Court had the occasion to consider the question whether a person who is going for attending his duty can be said to be on official duty. In the above decision it was held that travelling as such was riot part of his duty even though in order to attend to such duty he had to do some travelling. In the above decision this Court said that Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code can apply only when the public servant is discharging the duty imposed on him by virtue of his office and he must be performing an act which is so integrally connected with the duty attached to his office as to form part of it. Travelling to the place of duty was not treated as something done in discharge of official duty. So, the finding by the trial Court that the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code can be found to be not correct for the reason that even if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is accepted as such, Section 353 is not at all attracted.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Rajender Datt vs The State Of Haryana on 31 August, 1992

A bare glance through the same leaves no doubt that the assault or intimidation to the public servant must be with an intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant. In the case in hand, Mr. Sharma was simply proceeding to Thermal Plant for resuming his duty and thus, it cannot be said that Rajinder Dutt accused had assaulted him during the execution of his duty. The observations of Kerala High Court in Richard Saldana v. State, AIR 1960 Kerala 200 : (1960 Cri LJ 828) can be referred with advantage in this regard. In that case, a Co-operative Extension Officer while proceeding to his headquarters after attending a meeting of a Co-operative Society was assaulted at a bus stop. Under these circumstances, it was held that he was not assaulted during the discharge of his duties.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs M. Chandrappa And Anr. on 7 February, 1986

7. Although there is no doubt PW-5 has stated that he had been deputed on duty to search the known depradator and he was returning back to report about the efforts made by him, neither the fact that he had been so deputed on duty and was returning to report to the police station regarding the duty entrusted to him, nor the fact that he was in the uniform is sufficient to hold the offence committed is one punishable under S. 353 IPC. Of course, a police constable is a police officer and supposed to be so all the 24 hours of the day in as much as he can at any moment may be called upon to duty. But in order to sustain a charge of the offence punishable under S. 353 IPC, what has to be established is that the public servant was actually engaged in execution of the duty. Since at the time when the incident is alleged to have taken place PW-5 was merely waiting for a bus to reach the police station, it cannot be said he was engaged in executing the duty and in our view the charge of the offence under S. 353 IPC cannot be sustained. The view that we are taking on the facts of the case is also supported by the decision reported in the case of Richard Saldana v. State . However, as stated earlier, the evidence does show that A-1 did assault PW-5 and he is guilty of the offence punishable under S. 352 IPC and the court below was therefore not justified in making an order of wholesale acquittal of A-1.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Saldana vs . State Air 1960 Kerala 200. on 18 May, 2009

It is further argued by the counsel for the defence that it has come in the cross examination of Smt. Santosh Chaturvedi that when she was rushing out at the time of recess, somebody came abruptly and knocked at her nose and that as a result of the same, she fell down and she could not see the face of the person who had knocked her. In my -:19:- view, the entire deposition of Smt. Santosh Chaturvedi has to be taken into consideration. Although it is correct that there is nothing to explain as to in what context the said statement of the witness has come in her cross examination, but the total tone and tenure of her statement is such that she is fully supporting the case of prosecution and she has identified the accused as the person who had hit her and had beaten her. Applicability of Section 186/333/353 IPC A public servant is often exposed to considerable risks in discharge of his official duties and the law therefore, throws round him, a special protection by prescribing special deterrent sentence to those who offend against the majesty of the law, of which he is a minister. However, it is not intended to encircle with a perennial halo of sanctity and inviolability, the penal code has throughout, in regard to him, protected him only when he is in the execution of the duty. It is clear that he shall be left, at every times, to have recourse to the ordinary law applicable to all alike. It was so held in Richard Saldana Vs. State AIR 1960 Kerala 200.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1