Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (2.12 seconds)
Documents citing Rani Ratna Prova Devi Rani Saheba Of ... vs State Of Orissa And Another on 23 January, 1964

Rajni Devi vs State on 15 February, 2016

The word "causes" appearing in Section 338 IPC connotes a positive act which results in hurt to any person. As has been said above, Mrs. Rajni Devi, Principal (petitioner herein) has not caused any hurt to the son of the respondent no.2. Therefore, the impugned order whereby the petitioner herein Mrs. Rajni Devi, Principal has been summoned u/s 338 IPC cannot be sustained. Accordingly Revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 02.06.2015 summoning the petitioner herein Mrs. Rajni Devi Principal u/s 338 IPC is set aside as there was no material before ld. Metropolitan Magistrate to proceed against petitioner Rajni Devi vs. State & Anr.
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sushil Chander Anand vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 19 May, 1967

21. The burden of proving that the impugned Adhiniyam is discriminatory and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India lies on the petitioners and the initial presumption is in favour of constitutionality. See Rani Katna Prova Devi v. State of Orissa, AIR 1964 SC 1195, Para. 12. In the first place, there is not enough material on the record to show that, in fact, there exists any discrimination. Therefore, because of the vagueness of allegations and lack of sufficient particulars, it is not possible to hold that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are discriminatory.
Allahabad High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 4 - M H Beg - Full Document

State vs Ashok Kumar Pandey on 9 February, 2001

20. It should be borne in mind that before the amendment of Sec. 367 (5), Old Code, by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1955 (XXVI of 1955) which came into force on January 1, 1956, on a conviction for an offence punishable with death, if the Court sentenced the accused to any punishment other than death, the reason why sentence of death was not passed had to be stated in the judgment. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court that since the amendment of Sec. 367 (5), Old Code, the question of proper sentence when the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death is to be decided like any other point for determination with the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. (See: cases of Majoiya Ratna Vs. State: (1961) 1 Crl.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 4 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State vs Shaqila And Ors. on 20 October, 2000

20. It should be borne in mind that before the amendment of Section 367(5), Old Code, by the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1955 (XXVI of 1955) which came into force on January 1,1956, on a conviction for an offence punishable with death, if the Court sentenced the accused to any punishment other than death, the reason why sentence of death was not passed had to be stated in the judgment. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court that since the amendment of Section 367 (5), Old Code, the question of proper sentence when the accused is convicted of an offence punishable with death is to be decided like any other point for determination with the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision. See: cases of Majoiya Ratna v. State: (1961) 1 Cri LJ 89: Satya Vir v. Stale: (1958) Cri LJ 1266.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 1 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Ncb vs . Leonard Ofodum on 19 April, 2014

111 It is also to be taken note of that admittedly till date no experiments have been conducted in India in any lab whatsoever to prove that the percentage of diacetylmorphine in a given sample deteriorates over a passage of time and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in two of its judgments SC No. 32/2009 Page No. 32 of 43 NCB Vs. Leonard Ofodum pronounced in the cases titled as Rajni Devi Vs. State 2006 Cri.L.J 891 and Union of India Vs. Farid 2011(4) JCC (Narcotics) 213 has held that a huge variation in the percentage of diacetylmorphine on a sample being retested cannot be accepted solely on the ground of the lapse of time between the two tests. Further in the considered opinion of this court even if it is assumed that the variation in the percentage of diacetylmorphine in the two CRCL reports in the present case is only due to the lapse of time between the two tests, as discussed hereinabove, there is absolutely no satisfactory explanation forthcoming from the prosecution to explain the variation in the colour of the sample mark A1 and the parcel A and the sample mark A2.
Delhi District Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sc No.15/09 State vs . Ved Prakash & Ors. on 5 July, 2014

per the FSL report Ex.PW14/A i.e. the report that was prepared with respect to the sample sent during investigation, the said sample was found to contain paracetamol, caffeine, monoacetylmorphine, acetyl codeine, diacetylmorphine (28.9%), phenobarbital (2.7%) and alprazolam (9.7%). However with respect to the sample drawn from the case property produced during trial, as per Ex.PW14/B the said sample was found to contain paracetamol, caffeine and diacetylmorphine only. There is no reference in the said report about the presence of monoacetylmorphine, acetylcodeine, phenobarbital or alprazolam in the said sample. Though initially when Dr. Madhulika Sharma was examined as PW14 on 17.02.2011, she was neither asked by the prosecution nor by the defence about the said variation in the two reports, subsequently this court vide order dated 27.05.2014 had recalled the said witness for seeking an explanation with respect to the variation in the two reports on the request made by both Ld. APP and the Ld. Defence counsel and taking into consideration the dicta laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in a case titled as Rajni Devi Vs. State 2006 CRI.L.J. 891, wherein it has been held that where a substance recovered from an accused facing trial under the NDPS Act is got retested, it is the duty of the prosecution and the court to examine the said witness with respect to the said variation.
Delhi District Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next