Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.77 seconds)Section 225 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shiv Kumar vs Hukam Chand And Anr on 30 August, 1999
"13. Having carefully perused both the decisions, we do not perceive any kind of
anomaly either in the analysis or ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Court. We may
note with profit that in Shiv Kumar [Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand, (1999) 7 SCC 467 :
Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M/S Jk International vs State, Govt Of Nct Of Delhi And Others on 23 February, 2001
In J.K. International [J.K. International v. State (Govt. of NCT of
Delhi), (2001) 3 SCC 462 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 547] from the passage we have quoted
hereinbefore it is evident that the Court has expressed the view that a private person
can be permitted to conduct the prosecution in the Magistrate's Court and can engage
a counsel to do the needful on his behalf. The further observation therein is that when
permission is sought to conduct the prosecution by a private person, it is open to the
court to consider his request. The Court has proceeded to state that the court has to
form an opinion that cause of justice would be best subserved and it is better to grant
such permission. And, it would generally grant such permission. Thus, there is no
cleavage of opinion."
Section 301 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rekha Murarka vs The State Of West Bengal on 20 November, 2019
In order to buttress his point, Mr. Katakey has relied upon a judgment of the
Supreme Court that was delivered in Rekha Murarka v. State of W.B., reported in
(2020) 2 SCC 474. Paragraph 11.1 of the said judgment is quoted as under:
Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs Kishore Wadhwani . on 6 September, 2016
In support of the impugned order, Mr. Bhattacharjee has relied upon a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Dhariwal Industries Ltd. v. Kishore
Wadhwani, reported in (2016) 10 SCC 378 . Paragraph 13 of the said judgment is
quoted as under:
1