Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.22 seconds)
Somabhai Mangalbhai Dabhi vs State Of Gujrat on 6 February, 1988 cites

Mahadeo Hari Lokre vs The State Of Maharashtra on 23 November, 1971

7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Mahadeo Hari Lokre v. State of Maharashtra 1972 ACJ (SC). In that case, the Supreme Court observed that if a pedestrian suddenly crosses the road without taking note of the approaching bus, the bus driver cannot save the accident and he cannot be held to be negligent. In the present case, the fact of the pedestrian suddenly crossing the road is negatived and therefore this judgment is of no assistance to the petitioner-accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 99 - D G Palekar - Full Document

Venka Anantha Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 28 August, 1973

11. From this judgment, it is not possible to hold that in every case of Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, benefit of probation is required to be given. It would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. In that case the Supreme Court relied on the circumstances of contributory negligence and "peculiar circumstances of this case". It is not clear as to what other peculiar circumstances appealed to the Supreme Court in that case.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 26 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

State Of Karnataka vs Krishna Bhima Walvakar & Anr on 7 May, 1981

14-A. In the case of State of Karnataka v. Krishna alias Raju 1987 ACJ 443 (SC), the Supreme Court came down heavily when the accused was let off with a fine of Rs. 250/- only for offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code and the Supreme Court enhanced the sentence to six months' R.I. In that case, the learned trial Magistrate had imposed a fine of Rs. 250/- only. The High Court was moved under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence by filing an appeal as the State was perturbed and shocked by the callous manner in which the Magistrate had dealt with the case. The Supreme Court noted with regret that the High Court declined to interfere with sentence. The High Court had taken a view that though the sentence of fine was lenient one, the period that had passed between the date of conviction and the date of hearing in the High Court was about two years which must have caused the accused lot of anxiety and therefore refused to enhance the sentence observing that in such serious cases, the court is expected to take a serious view of the matter. Supreme Court observed that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 95 - A P Sen - Full Document

Ravjibhai Maganbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 8 September, 1983

In the case of Ravjibhai Maganbhai v. State of Gujarat 1984 ACJ 723 (Gujarat), this Court had refused to extend probation to ST bus driver who had overtook a scooterist from its right side and thereafter again turned to the left showing absolute negligence on the part of the driver and by the said accident, a human life was lost. The court observed in that case as under:
Gujarat High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - M B Shah - Full Document

Emperor vs Shanmukh Basapa Dhamanji on 30 January, 1930

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not discussed the evidence independently and merely adopted the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and therefore his judgment is illegal and for that purpose, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of Emperor v. Shanmukh Basapa Dkamanji 1930 BLR 353. In that case, the appellate court had passed a very brief order of five lines to the effect that the trial court's order contains full statement of facts and appreciation of evidence appears to be correct and the appellant's arguments were not convincing and therefore there was no reason for interference. In respect of such an appellate judgment, the Bombay High Court had observed that the judgment failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code and that such an irregularity was not a mere technicality because such judgment is required to contain points for determination and reasons for the decision. In that case, there were no reasons. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence of the eye-witnesses, panchanama as well as the defence and has given his decision with reasons on the points for determination.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1