Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.02 seconds)
Documents citing Gorakh Tulji Mahale vs The State Of Maharashtra on 28 July, 1964

Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 10 September, 1965

However, the point does not need to be pursued, for the earlier decision of Paranjpe, J., holding that acceptance of bribe by a police officer would be under colour of the duty, have not been approved by a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Gorakh Tulji Mahale v. State of Maharashtra [1965 - II L.L.J. 205]. In that case the accused, a police constable, was prosecuted under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code, S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on a charge of accepting illegal gratification as a motive for releasing a person whom he had arrested on suspicion. The prosecution was instituted more than six months after the bribe was alleged to have been taken and the question that arose for consideration before their lordships was whether the act was under colour of duty and the accused was entitled to the benefit of the period of limitation provided for by S. 161 of the Bombay Police Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave And Anr. vs The State Of Gujarat on 10 September, 1965

However the point does not need to be pursued for the earlier decisions of Paranjpe J. holding that acceptance of bride a police officer would be under colour of the duty have not been approved by a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court reported in Gorakh Tulji Mahal v. The State of Maharashtra 66 Bom. L.R. 799. In that case the accused a police constable was prosecuted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on a charge of accepting illegal gratification as a motive for releasing a person whom he had arrested on suspicion. The prosecution was instituted more than six months after the bribe was alleged to have been taken and the question that arose for consideration before Their Lordships was whether the act was under colour of duty and the accused was enti tled to the benefit of the period of limitation provided for by Section 161 of the Bombay Police Act.
Gujarat High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Jamadar Mansingrao Bhagvat Rao on 10 August, 1967

"However, the point does not need to be pursued for the earlier decisions of Paranjpe, J., holding that acceptance of bribe by a police officer would be under colour of the duty, have not been approved by a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Gorakh Tulji Mahale v. State of Maharashtra [1965 - II L.L.J. 205] ... The Division Bench disapproved the decision in Narhar Rao Madhavrao Patil v. State. Justice Sri Chandrachud who spoke for the Bench examined the language of the section and having considered various rulings on the point set out what that Court considered to be the correct position of law as under :
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra And Khas Mohamad ... vs Prabhatkumar Shantaram Rangnekar And ... on 13 August, 1984

49. This aspect has been further considered by this Court in Gorakh Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, 1965 Mh.L.J. 94, when it was held in terms that provisions of section 161 of the Bombay Police Act as under the colour of office are more or less on par with the provisions of section 197 of the Code. It was also held that those words would have the meaning that the accused was using the existence of his official duty, as a cloak for his corrupt action and as a veil to its falsity.
Bombay High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mrs. Mary Kutty Thomas vs Mr. Pawar, D.C.P.-Zone-Iv And Another on 10 February, 1983

I may also further observe that an identical construction was placed, though slightly in the different context by this Court, while interpreting the provisions of Section 253(2) of the Code in Gorakh Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, 1965 Mah LJ 94 : (1965 (2) Cri LJ 193), when it was observed that the terminology implied therein as "under colour of office" would have the similar consideration for its construction as is required to be done din the one used in Section 253(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After examining the various ratios this Court observed that terminology also would be that there should be some relationship between the official act or the acts connected with the office and the act complained of, so that at least ostensibly it can be represented and so camouflaged by the accused that he was really doing his duty. The extent of the act in the said case was held to be wholly outside the scope of the said office. Several other illustrations have also been utilised in support of the said ratio.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Mary Kutty Thomas vs Mr. Pawar, D.C.P. Zone-Iv And Ors. on 10 February, 1983

I may also further observe that an identical construction was placed, though slightly in the different context by this Court, while interpreting the provisions of Section 197 of the Code in Gorakh Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, 1965 Man LJ 94 : 1965 (2) Cri LJ 193, when it was observed that the terminology implied therein as "under colour of office" would have the similar consideration for its construction as is required to be done in the one used in Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After examining the various ratios this Court observed that the real test in the context of that terminology also would be that there should be some relationship between the official act or the acts connected with the office and the act complained of, so that at least ostensibly it can be represented and so camouflaged by the accused that he was really doing his duty. The extent of the act in the said case was held to be wholly outside the scope of the said office. Several other illustrations have also been utilised in support of the said ratio.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Trustees Of Port Of Bombay vs The Premier Automobiles Ltd. And ... on 15 February, 1974

In Gorakh Fulji Mahala v. State(1), Chandrachud, J., as he then was, made an elaborate study of a comparable provision in the Bombay Police Act (s. 161) and followed the Federal Court decisions already referred to by us, as well as this Court's decision in Shreekantiah Ramayya kunipalli v. State of Bombay(2). The learned Judge summed up the law thus "The decisions cited above have uniformly taken the view that in an act cannot be said to be done under colour of office or under colour of duty or in the Purported execution of official duties unless there is a reasonable connection between the act and the office. A view has also been taken in these decisions that one of the tests for determining whether an act has been done in the purported discharge of official duties is whether the public servant can defend his act by reference, to the nature of the duties of his office if he is challenged while doing the act."
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 39 - V R Iyer - Full Document
1