Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.21 seconds)Indian Railways Act, 1890.
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 290 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs Kali Singh on 28 July, 1975
8. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of
the Apex Court in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Kali
Singh [AIR 1977 SCC 57] and submitted that on the facts of
that case, it was found that a very petty matter was allowed
to have a long and chequered career because Magistrate
refused to apply his mind either on the allegations in the
complaint or to control the proceedings.
Mrs. Veeda Menezes vs Yusuf Khan And Anr on 31 March, 1966
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mrs.Veeda
Menezes, V. Yusuf Khan Haji Ibrahim Khan and
another [AIR 1966 SC 1773] where the scope of Section 95
of Indian Penal Code and the trivial character of an offence
was considered. On the facts it was found that the injuries
caused to the appellant and Robert were trivial. The High
Court found that the injury intended to be caused was so
slight that a person of ordinary sense and temper would not
complain of the harm caused thereby. Their lordships of
the Apex court held:
Philip Rangel vs Emperor on 25 November, 1931
9. The learned counsel also relied on the decision of
the High Court of Bombay in Philip Rangel Vs. Emperor
[AIR 1932 Bombay 193]. The facts of the case as revealed
in the judgment show that while a meeting of the share
holders of a co-operative bank was in progress, it was
proposed that the requisitionists of the said meeting should
be expelled from the company. The accused got very angry.
While he was leaving the room, he muttered the words "You
damn bloody bastards and cads". Those words although not
addressed to the meeting in general, was overheard by
some members who were present. The accused was
prosecuted for the offence under Section 504 of Indian
Penal Code. It was held that if abusive language is used in
such circumstances that the court comes to the conclusion
that it can not possibly have been intended to be taken
literally and cannot have been understood by those to whom
it was addressed to have been intended the accused cannot
be convicted. Broomfield J following the Full Bench
Crl.M.C. No.4122 of 2005.