Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)The Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 67 in The Information Technology Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
State Of West Bengal vs Sadan K. Bormal & Anr on 29 April, 2004
2. The present application under Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 6.9.2016 and cognizance/summoning order dated 15.2.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh as well as entire proceeding of Crl. Case No.12820 of 2021 (State Vs. Sadan) arising out of Case Crime No.287 of 2016, under Sections 292 I.P.C. and 67 of Information Technology Act, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.
R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960
6. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the applicant. All the submission made at the bar relates to the disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court in exercise of power conferred under Section 528 B.N.S.S. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991
426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.)
M/S Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd.& ... vs Md Sharaful Haque & Anr on 1 November, 2004
192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.
1