Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)Documents citing
Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 23 July, 2002
Lolapu Chinnanna vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By Public ... on 20 July, 2004
21. Reliance was also placed on Sunder V. State (NCT of Delhi), 2002 SCC. (Crl.) 1441 relating to the propriety of conviction in relation to Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act. It is needless to say that the learned Judge had taken a lenient view and had convicted the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act and while imposing the sentence also the learned Judge had taken a lenient view and hence, in the light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the learned Judge are perfectly in accordance with law and well justified. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judge under Section 304-Part-II IPC and Section 27 of the Indian Arms Act deserve no disturbance in the hands of this Appellate Court.
(Against The Judgment Of Conviction ... vs State Of Jharkhand on 30 November, 2023
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder v. State (NCT
of Delhi) reported in (2002) 6 SCC 593 at paragraphs 6 and
7 has held as under:
State vs Chirag Shokken on 23 September, 2025
"Criminal Appeal No. 450/2002 has been filed by Sunder and Criminal
Appeal No. 602/2002 by Sathir Singh under section 19 of the Terrorist and
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 ("TADA in short) against the
judgment and order dated 5th and 6th May, 1998 passed by the
Designated Court, Delhi By the said judgment the appellants have been
convicted for offences under Sections 399 and 402, Indian Penal Code as
also Section 25 of the Arms Act. Besides these two appellants, the three
other accused who were convicted by the Designated Court by common
judgment were Suleman, Chiman and Sadhu Ram. Suleman and Sadhu
Ram were also convicted under Section 5 of the TADA Act.
Reserved On: 17.03.2026 vs State Of H.P on 4 May, 2026
Sunder v. State (NCT of Delhi) 1990 Cri LJ 2370, wherein it was held
at page 2372:
Sandipbhai Bhanubhai Meckwan vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 7 May, 2008
10.5 Reliance was also placed on the decision of Sunder v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) , where the panch witness to the recovery of weapon from the accused turned hostile. The Apex Court observing that the prosecution did not think it appropriate to examine the head constable and ASI who were also witnesses to the Panchnama held that seizure of knife from the appellants had not been proved.
Rajesh Pathak Alias Pramod Pathak vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 January, 2011
In support of his argument,
counsel for the accused/appellant placed reliance on the
decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sunder v.
State (NCT of Delhi) 2002 (6) SCC 593 and in the matter of
Sumersinbh Umedsinh Rajput alias Sumersinh v. State of
Gujrat 2007 (13) SCC 83.
Saroj Kumar & Anr vs The State Of Bihar on 19 July, 2017
In that
background, learned counsel has rightly relied on Supreme
Court's decision in case of Sunder Vs. State(NCT of Delhi
reported in ( 2002) 6 SCC 593, where the Court recorded
acquittal under Section 25 of the Arms Act since the
prosecution failed to examine the seizure list witnesses.
Ataram Kena Badole vs The State Of Maharashtra on 9 May, 2025
17. Merely equipped with tools like screw driver and rope
and alleged country-made revolver is itself not sufficient to attract
the rigors of section 399 of IPC. To this extent the Hon'ble Apex Court
has dealt in the case of Sunder vs State (N.C.T. Of Delhi) reported in
(2002) 6 SCC 593, wherein it has been held that, mere recovery or
seizure is not sufficient to record guilt under section 399 of IPC.
1