Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Vithal Laxman Chalawadi & Etc vs State Of Karnataka Rep. By P. Prosecutor on 19 October, 2010

S T Goudar S/O Thippanna Hanumappa vs State By Police Inspector on 23 August, 2019

I have carefully gone through the decision in the case of Laxman vs The State of Karnataka (quoted supra). In that case laptop has been seized as it having been used in the counterfeiting the notes. After acquittal, the learned Sessions Judge without conducting any inquiry proceeded to confiscate the said laptop. In that light, the said order was set aside and laptop was returned to claimant as there were no other rival claimants. In that light, it helps the case of claimants rather than respondents. In that light, the contention taken up by the learned Special Public Prosecutor is liable to be rejected.
Karnataka High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Sri. Rameshappa on 18 February, 2020

5. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Lokayuktha police has contended that the order 5 under revision challenged herein is not sustainable under law. There is no trial or enquiry conducted by the trial Court in order to dispose of the property under Section 452 of Cr.P.C. There is no enquiry held, which is required under 458 of Cr.P.C. This being the case, releasing the property/articles and amounts in favour of the deceased-accused R.Rameshappa is not sustainable. The said property/articles and amounts are required to be confiscated to the State. Therefore, filed this revision petition for setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel in support of his contention relied upon the judgment of this Court in Criminial Appeal No.2717/2012, dated 03/09/2012 in the case of Laxman vs. The State of Karnataka and prayed to allow the revision petition.
Karnataka High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document

M/S. Diavisz Jewel Corporation Through ... vs M/S. M. B. Shah Exports And Ors on 11 February, 2020

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that filing of complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or initiation of arbitration proceedings cannot elude trial of offences alleged against the respondent and for this purpose, reliance is placed on judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of Dr.Laxman vs. State of Karnataka and Others3 and Trisuns Chemical Industry vs. Rajesh Agarwal and Others4.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - A M Badar - Full Document

Ramesh Alias Dapinder Singh vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 22 March, 2021

b) Vithal Laxman Chalawadi and others v. State of Karnataka2 “15. As regards the role of appellant Gangappa, the evidence on record suggests that he gave a chappal-blow to PW 6, the mother of the deceased Ramesh. There is no other overt act attributed to Appellant 3-accused who appears to have joined the melee when tempers ran high. The allegation that he exhorted Accused 1 and 2 to kill the deceased has not in our opinion been satisfactorily proved to justify his conviction for murder with the help of Section 34 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - U U Lalit - Full Document

Bollineni Krishnaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2024

Thus, there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement which is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 of IPC. There should be delivery of property by any person and make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security in terms of KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 12 Section 420 of IPC. The said principle is also laid down by the Apex Court in R.K.Vijayasaradhi vs. Sudha Seetharaman 6, Dr.Laxman vs. State of Karnataka 7.
Telangana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Bollineni Krishnaveni vs The State Of Telangana on 24 June, 2024

Thus, there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement which is an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 415 of IPC. There should be delivery of property by any person and make, alter or destroy valuable security or anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted into valuable security in terms of KL, J Crlp_616_2024 & wp_1875_2024 12 Section 420 of IPC. The said principle is also laid down by the Apex Court in R.K.Vijayasaradhi vs. Sudha Seetharaman 6, Dr.Laxman vs. State of Karnataka 7.
Telangana High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - K L Goud - Full Document

Smt N Shakuntala Bai vs R Raju @ Rajanna Since Dead Represented ... on 13 February, 2020

5. Even as per Section 458 of Cr.P.C., the property shall have to be released when the person is able to show that it was legally acquired by him. Otherwise, the property shall have to be forfeited to the State. But, here in this case, the very case of the complainant itself is that the property belonged to her, which was taken by the accused or borrowed from the complainant and not returned back and thereby, the accused committed criminal breach of trust. Therefore, mere non-production of a bill/document or not proving the ownership itself is not a ground for returning the gold ornament to the accused. Even if the accused has rival claim, the Trial Court ought to 8 have made an enquiry in order to dispose of the property, but that was not done. This Court in the case of Laxman vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.A.No.2717/2012, decided on 03.09.2012 has held that an enquiry is required to be held and then proceed to pass orders for releasing the property to a person. Even on perusal of the case on record, the complainant claimed that the said property belonged to her and a criminal prosecution has been launched. Therefore, without there being any records from the accused, ordering to return the material ornament to the accused is not correct. Therefore, the order under revision passed by the Trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court require to be set aside and the matter requires to be remanded to the Trial Court for making enquiry for disposal of the property.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - K Natarajan - Full Document
1