Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (2.38 seconds)Devendra Prasad Singh vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 1 July, 2009
It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India passed in Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019 in the case of
Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., as follows:-
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 9 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 39 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 51 in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Section 51A in The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 [Entire Act]
Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 February, 2019
6.The petitioner are accused in WLOR.No.2 of 2014. The case was
registered for the offences under Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The case
of the prosecution is that the petitioners are having possession of some
animals part of the wild life animals, which are six peacock legs and 54
thorn of porcupine and other medicinal leafs and roots without valid license
and they were sold it to the people. It is also seen from the statement
recorded under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., that there are evidences to attract
the offence under Section 304 IPC. It is also relevant to rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/8
CRL.O.P.(MD).No.3305 of 2018
2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. the State of
Maharashtra & ors., as follows:-