Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 302 (3.72 seconds)

Smt. Anita Devi vs The State on 4 October, 2018

that :­ Suit No. 1145/17                                                                                                   Page no. 4   of 6 Anita Devi vs.  State    It   is   not   under   dispute   that   plaintiff   is   the   legally wedded wife of Sh. Pradeep Kumar s/o Sh. Dharambir who is stated to be missing since 07.09.2007 and in this regard,   a   complaint   Ex.PW1/A   was   lodged   and   also   a publication Ex.PW1/B was published.  To prove her case plaintiff has also placed on record the copy of the letter to MCD and the complaint to SHO, PS Bawana along with the status report of police Ex.PW1/C & Ex.PW1/D.      Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 says that the burden of proving that a person is alive who has not been heard for seven years is on the person who affirms it.  It shows that if a person is not heard for seven years by those who would naturally have heard him if he had been alive, it may be presumed that he is dead. By the   testimony   of   PW1,   it   has   been   proved   that  Sh. Pradeep   Kumar   s/o   Sh.   Dharambir,   husband   of   PW­1 has   not   been   heard  for  more  than  seven  years  by  his relatives, friends and by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, therefore, I am of the view that in view of Section 108 of Indian Evidence Act 1872, it may be presumed that he is dead and it may be declared that he is dead.
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

R.Inbaraj vs State By

The second respondent appeared in person along with his learned counsel. Both pleaded mitigating circumstances to give minimum sentence of imprisonment under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and reduce the sentence imposed against him under Sections 420 of IPC and 120 (b) r/w 420 of IPC ie., He is aged above 74 years with old age aliments. Even during the pendency of the trial, he had undergone heart surgery. His mother is aged about 94 years and his wife is also suffering from various illness. The learned Special Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a planned execution of Criminal Act and as 72 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/03/2025 04:26:53 pm ) sequel there is a wrongful loss of Rs.20,70,025.00/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Seventy Thousand and Twenty Five Only). Therefore, he seeks to confirm the sentence of imprisonment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 984 laid a detailed guidelines to consider mitigating and aggravated circumstances to award sentence of imprisonment. This Court considered the said principles and considering the above mitigating circumstance deserves to be considered to reduce sentence. But misappropriated amount is Rs.
Madras High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mukesh Kumar Pandey & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 30 August, 2017

Mr. Giri, has submitted that the concept behind notice in Form-24 is to address the elected members about the date and place of administering oath and holding of election and from the pleadings it appears that all the members were aware of the holding of meeting on 29.6.2016 at 10.00 A.M. Mr. Giri referred to the judgments of the High Court as well as the Apex Court reported in the cases of Sabila Khatoon & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. :2017 (2) PLJR 29, Sunita Devi Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.: 2016 (1) PLJR 182, K. Kamaraja Nadar Vs. Kunju Thevar and others: AIR 1958 SC 687 and F.A. Sapa Etc., Etc., Vs. Singora and others, etc.: AIR 1991 SC 1557 to submit that Patna High Court LPA No.975 of 2017 dt.30-08-2017 14/32 there is substantial compliance of notice in terms of Form-24 and they have not suffered any prejudice and as such, even if there is infraction of service of notice, it will not be consequential in the present case.
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next