Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013
21. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705 (Anil Kumar and others versus M.K.Aiyappa and another), for the proposition of law that the respondents 1 and 2 are the public servants, the cognizance of any offence, by any court, is barred by Section 197 Cr.P.C. unless sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority, if the offence, alleged to have been committed, was in the discharge of the official duty. In para 13, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:
Ramdev Food Products Private Limited vs State Of Gujarat on 16 March, 2015
In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the decision (2015) 6 SCC 439 (Ramdev Food Products Privated Ltd., versus State of Gujarat), wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in para 19 and 20.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Priyanka Srivastava & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 19 March, 2015
In (2015) 6 SCC 287 (Priyanka Srivastava and another versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cautioned Magistrates who are exercising power under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., to be more vigilant with regard to nature of allegations and not to issue directions in a routine and casual manner without proper application of mind as it creates a very unhealthy situation in society and also reflects the erroneous approach of the learned Magistrate. It is held so as under in paragraphs 27 to 30: