Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Amarnath Vyas vs State Of A.P. on 19 December, 2006

Deshraj vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr on 28 April, 2017

13. Hence, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajeev Chaudhary's case (supra) and by Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amarnath Vyas's case (supra), the expression "imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 3 years" would not come within the expression "imprisonment for 3 years and upwards". Therefore, the offence punishable under sections 63, 63B and 65 the Act of 1957 cannot be considered as cognizable offence.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ani Technologies Private Limited vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2021

Both the afore-quoted judgments, while interpreting Section 135(1)(ii) of the Customs Act, the afore-extracted judgment in the case of AMARNATH VYAS (supra) was following the judgment rendered in the case of RAJEEV CHAUDHARY VS. STATE (N.C.T.) OF DELHI 8, rendered by the High Court of Delhi in the context of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. The language in Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. has no 8 (2001) Crl.L.J 2941 35 manner of application on its juxtaposition with Section 63 of the Act. The provision is entirely different from Section 63 of the Act.
Karnataka High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Nathu Ram vs State on 19 February, 2021

22. The view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amarnath Vyas's case (supra), relied upon by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Pintu Dey's case (supra) that there may be (Downloaded on 19/02/2021 at 08:55:39 PM) (13 of 14) [CRLRF-1/2020] certain other class of offences which may fall between classification II and classification III, but by default, they cannot be considered as coming within the purview of classification II, in our considered opinion, is not correct. As a matter of fact, Part II of First Schedule covers every offence under any other statute, other than IPC, where there is no stipulation regarding it being cognizable or non-cognizable in the statute itself.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M/S. Venkateshwara & Co vs The Assistant Commissioner on 26 February, 2019

___________________________________________________________________ As held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Amarnath Vyas's case (supra), there may be certain other class of offences which may fall in between Classification II and Classification III of second part of Schedule-I of CrPC but merely because they are not falling squarely within the domain of Classification III, they cannot automatically be treated as included in Classification-II. By default, they cannot be considered as coming within the purview of Classification II, I am totally in agreement with the above proposition laid down by Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Nathu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 7 April, 2020

A perusal of the said judgment reveals that the learned Single Bench of this Court applied the rationale of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Rajeev Choudhary (supra) and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Amarnath Vyas Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2007 Cr.L.J. 2025, and held that sentence "may extend upto three years" as provided for the offences under Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act, would not be covered (Downloaded on 07/04/2020 at 08:23:19 PM) 4 by the phrase "imprisonment for three years and upwards" as provided in Schedule II of Cr.P.C. and accordingly, the offences under Sections 63 and 68A of the Copyright Act were treated to be non-cognizable ones.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Mehta - Full Document
1   2 Next