Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.44 seconds)
Documents citing Karnal Singh Uttam Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 19 November, 1975

Unknown vs Talwar 2019.01.25 on 24 January, 2019

24. Reliance is being placed on the judgment titled as Karnal Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1976 SC 1097 where it has been held that "in view of Section 114 (a) of Evidence Act, the Court may presume that a man who is in the possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. Presumption of recent possession is an optional presumption. But if the explanation of accused invokes doubt in the mind of Court, presumption cannot operate to convict the accused."
Delhi District Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Younus Raj Kumar, vs The State Of Telangana, on 19 June, 2018

13(w). Thus, the law is very clear that without consideration of the twin requirements on the limitations to the entitlement of the bail or not applied to any of the petitioners, the question of granting bail does not arise under the Act. Article 21 is not an absolute fundamental right but qualified and in consideration of bail it is not the personnel liberty 24 2004(5)SCC 223 25 2004(5)SCC 230 26 AIR 1964 SC 221 27 2005(8) SCC-725 28 2004(3) SCC- 453 29 2002 (4) SCC-380 30 2004(1) SCC-337 31 2004 (1) SCC. 337 32 2000-SCC(Crl)1437 17 alone, but impact of the crime on society. Thus what ever the contentions of the personnel liberty is a constitutional guarantee cannot be claimed for release on bail unless it is shown the limitations laid down in Section 37 of the Act have no way apply and the other general parameters for bail laid down in CrPC are no way a bar for the entitlement.
Telangana High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Brahmanandam Goud vs The Senior Intelligence Officer on 19 June, 2018

13(w). Thus, the law is very clear that without consideration of the twin requirements on the limitations to the entitlement of the bail or not applied to any of the petitioners, the question of granting bail does not arise under the Act. Article 21 is not an absolute fundamental right but qualified and in consideration of bail it is not the personnel liberty 24 2004(5)SCC 223 25 2004(5)SCC 230 26 AIR 1964 SC 221 27 2005(8) SCC-725 28 2004(3) SCC- 453 29 2002 (4) SCC-380 30 2004(1) SCC-337 31 2004 (1) SCC. 337 32 2000-SCC(Crl)1437 17 alone, but impact of the crime on society. Thus what ever the contentions of the personnel liberty is a constitutional guarantee cannot be claimed for release on bail unless it is shown the limitations laid down in Section 37 of the Act have no way apply and the other general parameters for bail laid down in CrPC are no way a bar for the entitlement.
Telangana High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mohd. Shakeel vs The State on 19 June, 2018

13(w). Thus, the law is very clear that without consideration of the twin requirements on the limitations to the entitlement of the bail or not applied to any of the petitioners, the question of granting bail does not arise under the Act. Article 21 is not an absolute fundamental right but qualified and in consideration of bail it is not the personnel liberty 24 2004(5)SCC 223 25 2004(5)SCC 230 26 AIR 1964 SC 221 27 2005(8) SCC-725 28 2004(3) SCC- 453 29 2002 (4) SCC-380 30 2004(1) SCC-337 31 2004 (1) SCC. 337 32 2000-SCC(Crl)1437 17 alone, but impact of the crime on society. Thus what ever the contentions of the personnel liberty is a constitutional guarantee cannot be claimed for release on bail unless it is shown the limitations laid down in Section 37 of the Act have no way apply and the other general parameters for bail laid down in CrPC are no way a bar for the entitlement.
Telangana High Court Cites 87 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kanti Alias Lucky vs State Of Haryana on 14 July, 2022

21. The aid for the same may be taken of Section 114 (a) Evidence Act, thereby speaking that the court may presume that a man who is in possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be stolen, unless he can account for his possession. Presumption of recent possession is an optional presumption. But if the explanation of accused invokes doubt in the mind of the Court, presumption cannot operate to convict the accused as held in the case of Karnal Singh versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1976 SC 1097.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Moti Lal vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 1984

In Karnail Singh v. State of Maharashtra 1976 (1) SCC 882 their Lordship observed that the trying Magistrate has convicted the appellant under Section 411, IPC and sentenced him to six months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- when he was not even charged with this offence. The High Court had maintained this conviction and the sentence and had not even mentioned the defects in the trial. There was neither a charge under Section 411 IPC nor was the appellant asked to explain his possession of the truck altough he did account for it. Their Lordships further observed that the appellant's explanation appeared quite plausible and it may have been difficult to hold that the appellant could not have been prejudiced by the omission to frame a charge or by the manner in which he was put an omnibus question under Section 342 Cr. PC without giving him an intimation of the offence of which he was likely to be convicted, if these questions had been seriously raised.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 43 - Cited by 5 - N M Kasliwal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next