Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan vs Waman Narayan Gheeya And Ors. on 9 April, 2007

Ramratan Biyani S/O Shri Bhagwan Biyani vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jp:22955) on 14 May, 2025

In case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Waman Narayan Gheeya & Ors. (Supra), a Coordinate Bench while considering Section 413 IPC has observed that if evidence on record with regard to number of cases pending or in which the accused is convicted, Trial Court can frame charge for offence under Section 413 IPC along with Section 411 IPC. The ingredients are proved or not, has to be considered at the time of final adjudication.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A K Jain - Full Document

Pawan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 August, 2025

In the case of Kallu @ Sanjay Soni vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh vide order dated 26.08.2015 passed in CRR No.1538/2015, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court relying upon the judgment of State of Rajasthan vs. Waman Narayan Geeya and ors., 2007 Cr.L.J. 3614 and Kotta Gopinarayan Choudhary vs. State of Orissa, 2003 Cri.L.J. 4050 had held that the charges under Section 413 of IPC is not sustainable unless the accused had been previously been convicted for commission of office under Section 411 of the IPC.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kallu @ Sanjay Soni vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 August, 2015

It has been held by Rajasthan High Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs Waman Narayan Gheeya and ors.,2007 Cr.L.J. 3614 that a charge under section 413 of the Indian Penal Code for “habitually dealing” in stolen property can be framed when there is material on record to indicate that there are instances other than the present one, of accused found to be indulging in the stolen property. However, it is not necessary that there must be conviction or finding against the accused for the purpose of framing charge under section 413 of I.P.C. In that case, investigating agency had submitted a list of ten pending cases against the accused for similar type of offences; therefore, it was held that discharging of accused under section 413 of I.P.C., was not sustainable. In the case of Kotta Gopinarayan Choudhary Vrs. State of Orissa, 2003 CRI.L.J.4050, Orissa High Court has held that a charge under section 413 of the I.P.C. cannot be framed unless the accused had been previously been convicted for commission of offence under section 411 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, a perusal of the list of documents filed along with charge sheet reveals that no material has been filed in respect of any previous cases under section 411 of the I.P.C. registered against either applicant Kallu @ Sanjay Soni or Vikrant @ Vikki. There is no other material filed with the charge-sheet which may go on to suggest that they had dealt with stolen property on any previous occasion. Thus, for the purpose of the present case, the Court need not enter into the question whether any previous conviction is required for the purpose of framing charge or mere pendency some cases under section 411 against the accused would be sufficient to frame a charge under section 413 because no material at all has been filed in this case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1