Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 41 (2.07 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar vs Paramhans Yadav And Ors. on 4 April, 1986

Pradeep Rai And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 June, 2022

Considering the nature of the offence as well as the verification report, the entire proceedings as well as impugned charge-sheet in Session Trial No. 251 of 2008 (State vs. Paramhans Rai and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 15A of 2007 under Sections 323, 308, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhawarkol, District Ghazipur as well as Session Trial No. 27 of 2008 (State vs. Pradeep Rai and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 15 of 2007 under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Bhawarkol, District Ghazipur are hereby quashed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S K Rai - Full Document

P.K.Kuppusamy vs / on 15 September, 2021

Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688] .) “[T]o establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any lawful use.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

P.K.Kuppusamy vs / on 15 September, 2021

Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688] .) “[T]o establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any lawful use.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

P.K.Kuppusamy (A-3) vs / on 15 September, 2021

Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 22/27 Crl.A.Nos.507 and 512 of 2021 necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688] .) “[T]o establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any lawful use.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

R.Ponnan( A-2) vs / on 15 September, 2021

The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/28 Crl.A.Nos.463 and 510 of 2021 pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688] .) “[T]o establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any lawful use.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Narashimman (A-6) vs / on 15 September, 2021

The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688] .) “[T]o establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/29 Crl.A.Nos.497 and 505 of 2021 lawful use.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document

Narashimman (A-6) vs / on 15 September, 2021

The conspiracy can be undoubtedly proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must enquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them conspirators, but the latter does. It is, however, essential that the offence of conspiracy required some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. The express agreement, however, need not be proved. Nor actual meeting of two persons is necessary. Nor is it necessary to prove the actual words of communication. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient.” Conspiracy can be proved by circumstances and other materials. (See State of Bihar v. Paramhans Yadav [1986 Pat LJR 688] .) “[T]o establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or services in question could not be put to any https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 23/29 Crl.A.Nos.497 and 505 of 2021 lawful use.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - G Jayachandran - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next