Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (3.09 seconds)
Documents citing Hari Prasad And Ors. vs The State on 26 March, 1953

State Of Bombay vs Devakinandan Kanhyalal Agarwal on 13 August, 1958

In support of that conclusion the learned Judge relies on the decision in Hari Prasad v. The State, . It was held in that case that a person cannot be held guilty under Section 477A, unless the was employed by the firm in the capacity of either a clerk or an officer or a servant. That decision conflicts with the view taken by this Court in 6 Bom LR 553. Section 477A speaks of a person who is "employed or acting in the capacity of a clerk, officer of servant." That being so, we do nt see any reason why the scope of Section 477A should be confined to persons who are employed in those capacities, and should bot extend to persons who act in those capacities.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Pandurang S/O Ramji Khade vs State Of Maharashtra on 25 September, 1980

19. Shri Gaikwad also urged that a cheque or a document only completes the definition of an account or a document only when it is signed only the author. According to him, in the instant case, when the cheque is signed, it is only then that it becomes a document and prior to that it is only a scrap of paper over which the accused have made entries of the amount and the name of the payee etc. He, therefore, urged that it is not the accused who has made a document, but he only drafted it and finally it become a document when it was signed and stamped by Shri Nemade under his official seal. He, therefore, referred to I.L.R. 7 Calcutta 358 In re Juggun Lall: Hari Prasad and others v. State, Pramathan Nath v. The State, and 1968; Criminal Law Journal 1378 Public Prosecutor v. P.C. Raju and others.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1