Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.93 seconds)Documents citing
Sirajuddin Alias Siraj vs State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 1980
State Of Gujarat vs Raghu @ Raghavbhai Vashrambhai And Ors. on 25 January, 2002
2. Sirajuddin v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1981 SC 113.
State Of Orissa And Etc. vs Trinath Dash And Ors. on 5 January, 1982
In this connection, reference may be made to the principles laid down in Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra) (K. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh) (Antar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh) (K. Lakshmana Rao v. Public Prosecutor, State of Andhra Pradesh ; (Chowdikodlu Asuralli Dyavappa v. State of Mysore) ; (Harijan Megha Jeshe v. State of Gujarat) ; (Kanbi Purushottam Ladha v. State of Gujarat) ; (Hasan Ahmad Mai Isha v. State of Gujarat) ; (Marudanal Augusti v. State of Kerala) ; (Dinanath Singh v. State of Bihar) ; (Gulam Mah-mood A. Malek v. State of Gujarat) ; (Sirajuddin v. State of Karnataka) ; (Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat) and (Tara Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh). These principles are to be kept in mind while assessing the findings of the trial court with regard to the order of acquittal in respect of some of the charges.
State Of J. And K. vs Rattan Lal And Anr. on 19 April, 1999
In para 14 of Sirajuddin v. State of Karnataka AIR 1981 SC 113 : (1980 Cri LJ 1498), it has been held that:
State vs V.K. Muttoo And Ors. on 13 November, 2007
In an earlier judgment reported as 1980 CAR 359 (SC), Sirajuddin alias Siraj v. State of Karnataka also Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed while dealing with the scope of an appeal against a judgment of acquittal as under:
State vs Anil Batra And Ors. on 2 April, 2008
In an earlier judgment reported as 1980 CAR 359 (SC), 'Sirajuddin alias Siraj v. State of Karnataka' also Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed while dealing with the scope of an appeal against a judgment of acquittal as under:
Thaheer Nissar vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2015
12. We have perused the oral evidence of
prosecution witnesses with regard to seizure of gold
ornaments MOs.6 to 9, Exs.P-15 and P-21 the seizure
mahazars and Ex.P-36 the voluntary statement of the
accused. We have also perused the decision relied upon by
the learned counsel for the appellant-accused reported in
(1980) 4 SCC 375 in the case of SIRAJUDDIN alias
SIRAJ v. STATE OF KARNATAKA and considered the
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that
the witnesses i.e., jewelry shop owners, have not issued
any receipt while pledging the gold ornaments into their
shops. But looking to the materials on record so far as
MO.7 bangles are concerned, it is the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses that accused sold MO.7 bangles for
Rs.24,000/- and it is not a transaction of pledge.
Sri Madhu vs V Beeresha on 18 March, 2026
iii) Sirajuddin alias Siraj v. State of
Karnataka. reported in (1980) 4 SCC 375.
State Of U.P. vs Narendra Singh on 18 April, 2018
In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:-
State Of U.P. vs Brijesh Kumar And 6 Others on 27 July, 2022
In Sirajuddin Vs. State of Karnataka, (1980) 4 SCC 375, the Apex Court has reiterated the same principle in the following words:-