Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 43 (0.34 seconds)
Unknown vs Kamalam
cites
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 313 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bihar vs Basawan Singh on 21 March, 1958
From the above law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the finding
of the learned trial Judge that P.W.2 is to be treated as accomplice and the
same required “material corroboration” is not correct and in the considered
opinion of this Court, the learned trial Judge has committed a basic error
in appreciating the evidence of P.W.2.
Kishan Chand Mangal vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 October, 1982
Kishan Chand Mangal v. State of In the present case
Rajasthan, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 466 at
page 477
40/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960
9. The principles are now well settled. At one
time it was thought that an order of acquittal could
be set aside for “substantial and compelling
reasons” only and Courts used to launch on a search
to discover those “substantial and compelling
reasons”. However, the “formulae” of “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficiently
cogent reasons” and “strong reasons” and the
search for them were abandoned as a result of the
pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State
of Rajasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715 :
Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave Rajuji ... vs The State Of Gujarat on 19 April, 1968
In the case of Bhanuprasad Hariprasad Dave v. State of
Gujarat, reported in AIR 1968 SC 1323:
State Of U.P vs Dr.G.K. Ghosh on 21 September, 1983
51.9.State of U.P. v. G.K. Ghosh, reported in (1984) 1 SCC 254 at
page 261
65/73
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis