Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.92 seconds)
Documents citing Krishnamoorthy & Anr vs State By Inspector Of Police & Ors on 1 March, 2007

Arul vs The State Represented By

31.In this regard it would be useful to look into the decision of this Court made in Crl.A.No.483 of 1984 in the matter of Krishnamoorthy Vs State reported in 1989 Law Weekly Criminal 103, wherein the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court while allowing an appeal against the conviction for an offence under Section 302 of http://www.judis.nic.in 11 I.P.C. held that in cases involving the case and a case in counter if the above procedure is not followed by investigating agencies, it is not safe to fasten criminal liability upon the appellants therein.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - M V Muralidaran - Full Document

Sunitha Christy vs The State Represented By on 25 August, 2021

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court in Krishnamoorthy vs. The Inspector of Police, M.Reddiyapatti Police Station and another in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.543 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022, this Court, after considering the various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that since the owner therein being prima facie guilty of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/16 CRL.R.C.(MD).No.660 of 2021 causing cruelty to the animals, is not entitled to get the custody of the cattle and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Keshav Jangde @ Balla And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 30 January, 2023

7. Per contra, Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State / respondent, would support the impugned judgment and would submit that the prosecution has been able to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence available on record to connect the two appellants with the offence in question and therefore they have rightly been convicted and minor discrepancies in the prosecution case cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case, at all. Ms. Ruchi Nagar, learned State counsel, would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Sanjay alias Kaka v. State (NCT of Delhi)9 and Krishnamoorthy and another v. State by Inspector of Police and others 10 to buttress her submissions. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S Agrawal - Full Document

Mohandass vs State Represented By on 4 August, 2025

10. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would also rely on a decision of this Court in Krishnamoorthy Vs. Inspector of Police, M.Reddiyapatti Police Station and another in Crl.R.C.(MD)No. 543 of 2022 dated 12.08.2022, wherein, this Court, after considering the various decisions of this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held that since the owner therein being prima facie guilty of causing cruelty to the animals, is not entitled to get the custody of the cattle and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abdul Jafar @ Abdul Jappar vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 10 January, 2025

Similarly, the cases cited by the petitioner, including Peer Maideen's case, M.Ebenezar's case, and Krishnamoorthy's case (cited supra), are distinguishable, as they involved different facts and circumstances. In those cases, this Court found that no prima facie case was made out. However, in the present case, there is clear evidence of the petitioner's involvement in violating 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD)No.595 of 2025 COVID-19 restrictions, which justifies the registration of the case and filing of the charge sheet.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document
1