Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 375 (1.93 seconds)

Ranveer Singh vs State Of H.P on 31 December, 2024

(Ashwani Kumar Saxena case [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 594], SCC p. 764, para 34) "34. ... There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But the court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents kept during the normal course of business.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Ramesh Chand Alias Baag vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 8 September, 2025

Though the earlier ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2025 21:31:05 :::CIS 16 ( 2025:HHC:30454 ) decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 594] was not cited before the Court, it appears from the above extract that the three-Judge Bench observed that the credibility and acceptability of the documents, .
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

'V' vs State Of H.P on 6 December, 2024

(Ashwani Kumar Saxena case [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 594], SCC p. 764, para 34) "34. ... There may be situations where the entry made in the matriculation or equivalent certificates, date of birth certificate from the school first attended and even the birth certificate given by a corporation or a municipal authority or a panchayat may not be correct. But the court, Juvenile Justice Board or a committee functioning under the JJ Act is not expected to conduct such a roving enquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents kept during the normal course of business.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - V S Thakur - Full Document

Vishal Singh @ Pitarsan @ Vishal Kumar ... vs State Of Up And Another on 15 July, 2022

Though the earlier decision in Ashwani Kumar Saxena [Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of M.P., (2012) 9 SCC 750 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 594] was not cited before the Court, it appears from the above extract that the three-Judge Bench observed that the credibility and acceptability of the documents, including the school leaving certificate, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no hard-and-fast rule as such could be laid down. Concurring with the judgment of R.M. Lodha, J., T.S. Thakur, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) observed that directing an inquiry is not the same thing as declaring the accused to be a juvenile. In the former the court simply records a prima facie conclusion while in the latter a declaration is made on the basis of evidence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 4 - R Misra - Full Document

State Of J&K And Others vs Shubam Sangra on 11 October, 2019

The Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena's case read with the judgment passed in Shri Ganesh V. State of Tamil Nadu as relied upon in paragraph 34 of the judgment of Ashwani Kumar Saxena‟s case by holding that the Court is not expected to conduct such a roving inquiry and to go behind those certificates to examine the correctness of those documents, kept during the normal course of business.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - T Rabstan - Full Document

Ajay Pal And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 12 April, 2018

27. On the basis of above report, the trial Court has expressed opinion that on the basis of medical evidence as contained in paper No. 46 A/3, it was evident that the age of accused was more than 18 years on the date of occurrence i.e. 05/08/2009, hence he was not a juvenile. Further it is mentioned by the trial Court that in Ashwani Kumar Saxena vs State of MP, 2013 (SC) 593 in Para 6, the dental Surgeon had opined about the age of accused to be 21 years on the basis that the 32 teeth were found in his jaws and that in an x-ray report the bones of wrist, elbow and knee were found fused, on the basis of which Doctor had opined about the age of the accused to be more than 20 years, therefore in the case on hand also the learned trial Court has opined that the accused was more than 18 years of age on the date of occurrence and hence was an adult. Otherwise also APW 1, Tularam, father of the accused could not tell his age nor could he file any family register.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dulal Shyam Chaudhary vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 July, 2023

"20 In Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh a two-judge bench of this Court considered the provisions of Section 7-A of the 2000 Act along with rule 12(3)(a) of the 2007 Rules. The court held that it is only in cases where the documents stipulated under rule 12(3)(a) are found to be fabricated or manipulated that the court or the Board may direct a medical examination for age determination. The Court further laid down the guidelines for conducting the age determination inquiry:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S K Dwivedi - Full Document

Sayeed .. Revision vs The State Rep. By on 31 May, 2018

9. Appearing for the appellant in support of the appeal, Mr. A. Ramesh, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the determination of age of a juvenile has to be principally on the basis of documentary evidence and only in the absence of such documentary evidence, medical opinion could be pressed into service. In his submission the High Court was completely in error in setting aside the view taken by the trial court and in remitting the matter for fresh consideration. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Saxena v. State of Madhya Pradesh[1].
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R S Kumar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next