Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (2.19 seconds)
Documents citing Prakash Kumar @ Prakash Bhutto vs State Of Gujarat on 12 January, 2005

Ganesh Nivrutti Marne vs The State Of Maharashtra Through on 7 May, 2010

In paragraph 20 of that judgment, the Division Bench has observed that the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rambhai Nathabhai Gadhvi & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 744 is no more a good law as was specifically declared to be per incurium by the Apex Court in the case of Prakash Kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409. It has been submitted that the position of law has been incorrectly stated with certain other observations by the Bench.
Bombay High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 6 - R P Desai - Full Document

Manjit Singh @ Mange vs C.B.I on 25 January, 2011

(19) This issue was raised before the learned Designated Judge (TADA). The learned Judge has answered the issue and in his opinion, Babloo was not tried for offences under the TADA Act, only due to the extradition terms that were agreed by Union of India with Singapore Government. He has further stated that it was only due to this technicality that Babloo was not tried for offences under the Act, though his actions fully justified a trial for offences under the Act. It is this reasoning of the learned Designated Judge that was commented and taken exception to by learned senior counsel Shri K.T.S. Tulsi. We have already noticed that the submission of the learned senior counsel is that confession made by the co-accused charged under the TADA Act cannot be used against co-accused who is not charged and tried under the TADA Act. The learned senior counsel, while relying on the observations made by this Court in the case of Baba Peer Paras Nath vs. State of Haryana, (1996) 10 SCC 500, in aid of his submission, would further contend that this Court in the case of State vs. Nalini, (1999) 5 22 SCC 253 and the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Kumar@Prakash Bhutto vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 2 SCC 409, did not deal with the admissibility of a confession statement made by an accused under the TADA Act against co-accused not charged under the Act or the rules framed thereunder and therefore not applicable to the facts of the case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 10 - H L Dattu - Full Document

Krishnan M.C vs State Of Kerala on 18 February, 2021

44. The learned Prosecutor further placed reliance on Prakash kumar Alias Prakash Bhutto v. State of Gujarat (2005 (2) SCC 409) and May George v. Special Tahsildar and others (2010 (13) SCC 98) wherein it has been held while considering a provision as mandatory or directory, that the Court has to examine the context in which the provision is used and the purpose it seeks to achieve.
Kerala High Court Cites 78 - Cited by 1 - M R Anitha - Full Document

M/S Surabhi Security Services vs State Of Telangana And 2Others on 5 June, 2023

"13. A cardinal principle of statutory interpretation is that a provision in a statue must be read as a whole and not in isolation ignoring the other provisions of that statute. While dealing with a statutory instrument, one cannot be allowed to pick and choose. It will be grossly unjust if the Court allows a person to single out and avail the benefit of a provision from a chain of provisions which is favourable to him. Reference may be made to a constitutional bench decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Kumar v. State of Gujarat (2005) 2 SCC 409. The Court, in para 30, of that judgment observed as follows:
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P M Devi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next