Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.20 seconds)
State vs Kunal Sahrawat on 11 March, 2026 cites

Shri Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs State on 13 March, 2002

31. Secondly, it should be the prosecution also failed to prove the fact beyond reasonable doubt that the promulgation of prohibitory order Ex. A-1 was within the knowledge of the accused persons before they gathered at the spot for protesting. Reference can be taken from the decision of the It the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Bhoop Singh Tyagi vs. State 2002 SCC Online Del 277. It has been observed in that judgment that in order to secure conviction of the accused for the offence under section 188 IPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that (i) there was an order promulgated by a public servant, (ii) such public servant was lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, (iii) The accused necessarily had the knowledge of such order directing them to abstain from an act or to take certain order with certain property in their possession or under their management, (iv) The accused have disobeyed the order having its knowledge, (v) Such disobedience caused or tended to cause (a) obstruction, annoyance or injury or risk of it to any person lawfully employed or (b) danger to human life, health and safety.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 174 - Full Document
1   2 Next