Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)
Udit Kumar vs Dr. Amita Dev on 3 July, 2024 cites

Pramod Suryabhan Pawar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 August, 2019

have been made punishable. The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of 'insult', 'intimidation' and 'humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within 'public view'. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded." (3) Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra (before the High Court of Bombay) -
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 448 - D Y Chandrachud - Full Document

Swaran Singh & Ors vs State Tr.Standing Council & Anr on 18 August, 2008

merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 91 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 Next