Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1273 (5.14 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc on 12 April, 1996

State vs . Padam Thapa Etc. on 2 September, 2011

6.(a) Ld. Defence counsel for the accused Paramjeet Singh has vehemently rebutted the same contended that Murari Lal (PW1) has falsely implicated the said accused as on that day, he had an altercation with the 8/38 9 State Vs. Padam Thapa Etc. FIR No. 530/05 other accused Padam Thapa who is a Proclaimed offender regarding exchange of bottle of wine and when the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender) told him something bad, Murari Lal (PW1) and his colleagues namely Baldev Singh (PW2), Satish Kumar (PW3) who were present with him at the relevant time, had developed a grudge against him and have falsely implicated not only the accused Padam Thapa (Proclaimed offender) but even the accused Paramjeet Singh who has nothing to do with the case and accused Paramjit Singh does not even know the accused Padam Thapa (proclaimed offender).
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs . Karan Thapa on 16 January, 2015

5. On culmination of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he admitted that earlier he was residing in the neighbourhood of complainant but he had vacated the jhuggi about 5-6 months prior to the date of incident and also admitted that complainant and victim knew him previously as he was residing in their neighbourhood. Except these, he denied each and every other incriminating evidence led by prosecution and submitted that he had not made any disclosure statement before the police and alleged that police SC No. 57/13 Page 6 of 36 State Vs. Karan Thapa had obtained his thumb impression and signature on some blank papers forcibly. However, he admitted that he was medically examined. He further submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case as complainant used to quarrel with him frequently when he was residing in her neighbourhood. It was further stated that since complainant and her son had beaten him and given a blow of brick at his head, he had shifted to Sarai Rohilla, Railway station jhuggi. It was alleged that though he had shifted from the colony of complainant but complainant was developing a grudge against him, consequently, she had falsely named him in this case. It was submitted that one police official came to his house on December 3, 2012 when he was ready to go to his job at about 6 PM and the said police official took him to police station where he was beaten after putting fetters in his legs. It was submitted that at the next day, he was taken to LHMC hospital for medical examination. He expressed his ignorance about the incident that had allegedly taken place at the house of complainant and stated that he did not visit her house on December 3, 2012. however, he refused to lead any evidence in his defence.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State vs H.S.Thapar Etc on 20 March, 2026

1) CIS No. of the case : 2036329/2016 2) The date of commission of offence : 2003 (date and time unknown) 3) The name of the complainant : Sukrat Bajaj 4) The name & parentage of accused : (1)H.S. Thapar S/o Late Capt. K.S. Thapar (2) Vikas Thapar S/o H.S. Thapar (3) Manish Thapar S/o H.S. Thapar 5) Offences involved : Section 420/467/471 IPC 6) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty 7) Final order : Acquittal 8) The date of order : 20.03.2026 FIR No. 499/2011 State Vs. H.S. Thapar Etc. 1 of 8 Digitally signed by BHANU BHANU PRATAP SINGH PRATAP Date: SINGH 2026.03.20 18:42:29 +0530 Date of Institution : 27.06.2012 Judgment pronounced on : 20.03.2026 BRIEF FACTS
Delhi District Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. S.K. Shahi vs State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) on 3 November, 2007

31. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the accused persons has also relied on the judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another reported as (1979) 3 SCC 4 and State of Maharashtra Etc Etc Vs. Som Nath Thapa Etc. Etc. reported as JT 1996 (4) SC 615 in order to show the 23 Criminal Revision No. 100/06 & 101/06 principle which have to be borne in mind at the time of framing of the charges. He has further argued that the court should apply its judicial mind for considering whether or not there is ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused.
Delhi District Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.N. Thapa And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 August, 2001

42. From the Organisation chart submitted by the applicant himself, it is noticed that the applicant, who was then the Additional Collector, Customs (M & P) at Bombay, was in-charge of places. Including Shrivardhan Circle, where admittedly contraband goods involved in the cases were smuggled in by anti-social persons and smugglers, including ISI agents. His contentions that he has faithfully carried out the orders of the Collector, Shri S.K. Bhardwaj, and in case he is found guilty of lapses in carrying out his duties, Shri S.K. Bhardwaj should also have been similarly treated or alternatively that as Shri S.K. Bhardwaj has been let off he should also be let off has no merit in the circumstances of the case. His further submission that the applicant Thapa had done a fine job in a preventing smuggling during the period from 1991-92 by itself will not absolve him in his subsequent failure to check smuggling. With regard to S.N. Thapa, we would like to refer to two paragraphs of the Supreme Court Judgment in 1996 (State of Maharashtra v. S.N. Thapa and Ors. (supra) where the additional charge was framed against him where it has been observed:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 12 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jahid Kutbuddin Shaikh(A-1) vs State Of Gujarat on 14 September, 2018

Indian Penal Code has defined the term "criminal conspiracy" and the term "criminal conspiracy" has been examined by the several courts, more particularly, by the Apex Court in the celebrated decision in the case of State of Maharashtra and others Vs Som Nath Thapa and others (supra) by resorting to the interpretation of foreign Court also on which reliance has been placed by Mr.Syed, learned counsel for the petitioners. In the decision referred above, the arguments were advanced on behalf of the Additional Solicitor General of India that knowledge by itself would be enough for inferring conspiracy, but the said argument was not accepted as emerging out from the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 24 as reproduced above.
Gujarat High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 0 - R P Dholaria - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next