Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 249 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 3 January, 2006

Rakesh Kumar vs State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 7 August, 2009

After prosecution evidence was closed, statement of accused Rakesh Kumar Vs State was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C and accused examined one Raju in his defence as DW-1. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced and the impugned judgment passed. 3 In the present appeal before this court, the impugned judgment has been challenged inter-alia on the grounds that the judgment is not supported by convincing evidence and is based upon conjectures and surmises and is illegal. It was mentioned in the appeal that benefit of doubt which should have been given to the accused, had not been so given. It was claimed that there was no corroboration to testimony of ASI Dal Chand (PW-2) as there was no public witness, who had been joined in investigation and examined. It had been claimed that the accident was a blind accident committed by someone else. Learned Trial Court having placed reliance only on prosecution witnesses and not upon the defence witness was also challenged. It was further claimed that appellant was not driving the offending vehicle at the time of accident and had not been caught at the spot and had been falsely implicated.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shachindra Pratap Singh [P.I.L.] vs State Of U.P.Thr.Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 26 May, 2014

He also referred to and relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of Bihar & ors reported in (2006) 1 SCC 557, and Hamidbhai Azambhai Malik Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 403. He thus, submits that the scope of application of Section 197 Cr.P.C. is very limited and there is no protection to prosecute a public servant for commission of an act, which is not permitted under the law. It is already settled that the allegations which lead to commission of an offence under Section 467, 468 and 471 read with 120B of Indian Penal Code cannot be termed as a part of duty of a public servant.
Allahabad High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 2 - U N Singh - Full Document

Saswat Mishra And Another vs Dayanidhi Sharma And Another on 28 March, 2018

17. Moreover, the complaint and initial statement of the complainant clearly show that the present petitioners have organized the lottery after obtaining necessary permission of the State Government to promote the welfare scheme of the local people. The act complained of has got thus close nexus with the discharge of duty. Moreover, they are removable by the order of the sanction of the State Government. So, the ingredients of Section 197 Cr.P.C. are well fulfilled to protect the petitioners who are public servant. Now applying the aforesaid decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others -V- Ganesh Chandra Jew (supra); Om Prakash and others v. State of Jharkhand (supra); Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and another (supra); and Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and others (supra), prior sanction of the State Government is necessary to proceed with the offences. This fact is also well observed in the impugned order. When the statute is clear to show that obtaining of sanction of the State Government is a pre-condition to take cognizance of the offence, 15 any observation that the question of sanction can be considered after taking cognizance of the offence is absolutely beyond the purview of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
Orissa High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Amar Singh vs . Asha And Others on 7 April, 2012

17. I have considered this argument. As per provisions of Section 197, sanction for prosecution is required if the alleged act is done in discharge of his official duty. The allegations leveled by the complainant are of such nature and those prima facie cannot be treated as the act done in discharge of their official duty. Therefore, this argument is not tenable and the principles of law laid down in above cases Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar,(supra) and P.K. S.C. No.24/11 Amar Singh v. Asha & Ors. Page 9 of 13 Choudhury v. Commander, (supra) will not provide any benefit to the accused persons.
Delhi District Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next