Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Smt. Chhaya Yuvaraj Dahiwal And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Thorugh Acb, ... on 6 June, 2023 cites

Gallu Sah vs The State Of Bihar on 20 May, 1958

revn.22.2014 judge.odt 27 It is only in the case of a person abetting an offence by intentionally aiding another to commit that offence that the charge of abetment against him would be expected to fail when the person alleged to have committed the offence is acquitted of that offence. The Apex Court has also noted that the offence of abetment is complete when the alleged abettor has instigated another or engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit the offence. It is not necessary for the offence of abetment that the act abetted must be committed. Reference can be usefully made to another decision of the Apex Court which has been pressed into service by learned A.P.P., in the case of Gallu Sah v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 813. Even in this decision in paras. 7 and 8, the Apex Court examined the purport of the offence of abetment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - S K Das - Full Document

Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi ... vs Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijje And Ors. Etc. ... on 7 August, 1990

In the context of the above factual position it would be profitable to make useful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another5; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others6 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation7, wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to analyze all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and acceptability of the evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 501 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

In the context of the above factual position it would be profitable to make useful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another5; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others6 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation7, wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to analyze all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and acceptability of the evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 657 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1