Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)A.X.Gilbert vs State Of Kerala on 8 June, 2015
In Mr.X (supra), the
place involved was a room in a Government Guest House and
not a house owned or taken on lease by a person.
Krishnamurthy @ Tailor Krishnan vs Public Prosecutor, Madras on 26 September, 1966
What
the Apex Court has held in Krishnamurthy (supra) is as
follows:
Gaurav Jain vs Union Of India & Ors on 9 July, 1997
In this context, the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Gaurav Jain v. Union of India : AIR 1997
SC 3021 may also be noticed. It has been held therein as
Crl.M.C.No.7201/2016
10
follows:
K. Vijayakumar vs State Of Kerala Rep.By The on 19 February, 2016
In Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala : 2016 (1) KHC
698, when the police conducted a raid in a home stay, two ladies
and some men were found in a room. Accused 1 and 2 in that
case were conducting the home stay. The case was registered
against them under Sections 3, 4(1), 5 and 7 of the Act. This
court found that even if the allegation against the accused is
Crl.M.C.No.7201/2016
14
taken at its face value, it cannot be found that they had
committed any of the aforesaid offences and quashed the first
information report by invoking the power under Section 482 of
the Code.
Section 165 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bai Radha vs State Of Gujarat on 20 November, 1968
In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Bai
Radha (supra), the plea that non-compliance with the
requirement under Section 15(2) of the Act would vitiate the
entire proceedings cannot be accepted. In many cases, due to
various reasons, the police officer who conducts the search may
Crl.M.C.No.7201/2016
7
not be able to procure the presence of a woman to witness the
search. During the trial of the case, the police officer who
conducted the search may show or explain the reason for non-
compliance with the aforesaid provision. But, the accused will be
entitled to plead and prove during the trial of the case that non-
compliance with the provision contained in Section 15(2) of the
Act has caused prejudice to him. Whether any such prejudice
has been caused or not would depend on the facts and
circumstances of each case. It is a matter in the realm of
appreciation of evidence in each case.