Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)
Bommagani Dhanujay vs The State Of Telangana on 21 December, 2023 cites

Union Of India vs Methu Meda on 6 October, 2021

Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)] and the Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10701] are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 68 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner was selected for the post of SCT PC pursuant to the recruitment notification dt.31.12.2015. At the time of verification of certificates and antecedents, it was found that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.25/2014 of Nakrekal Police Station of Nalgonda District for the offence punishable under Section 354D read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 12 of POCSO Act. Subsequently, the said case was converted into a Sessions Case, i.e., S.C.No.75 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda and the said Court acquitted the petitioner vide judgment dt.19.11.2015. The petitioner brought all these facts to the notice of the recruitment authority and requested for issuance of posting order. However, there was a show-cause notice dt.06.04.2017 for cancellation of the petitioner's provisional selection. On 15.04.2017, the petitioner submitted his reply stating that the complainant has not recognized the petitioner/accused in the Court and even the mother of the complainant and the sister did not recognize the accused and therefore, the entire case was treated as a case not based on any evidence and accordingly the petitioner was honourably acquitted of the offences. However, the petitioner's provisional selection was cancelled by orders dt.03.07.2017, W.P.No.25870 of 2022 3 against which the petitioner filed W.P.No.28505 of 2017. This Court, vide orders dt.06.12.2017, set aside the same directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view of the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India 1. Thereafter, the impugned orders were passed on 21.02.2018, communicated in the month of October, 2018, reiterating their earlier stand for not giving appointment orders on the ground that the petitioner was involved in an offence of moral turpitude. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 1443 - A Mishra - Full Document

Gugulothu Nagu vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 25 October, 2021

In the case of Gugulothu Nagu Vs. The State of Telangana rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department 3, a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India including the decision in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (1 supra) and also referred to the phrase "Honourable acquittal" and also the definition of "Moral turpitude" and has held as under:
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B V Reddy - Full Document

Dy.Inspector Gen.Of Police & Anr vs S.Samuthiram on 30 November, 2012

or "Clean acquittal". Under criminal law, "Acquittal" means that the charge against the accused is not proved. There may be varying situations like acquittal recorded by giving benefit of doubt to the accused; acquittal recorded for lack of evidence or failure to prove charges against the accused; there may be situations where prosecution may not adduce evidence of crucial witnesses; some of the crucial witnesses may have died; there may be negligence on part of the prosecution in the investigation and production of crucial witnesses before the court. In the backdrop of the given illustrations it would be difficult to exhaustively lay down parameters as to what would constitute "Honorable acquittal". The Court has to go by the fact situation existing in each case. The Supreme Court while dealing 3 W.P.No.2106 of 2021 dt.25.10.2021 W.P.No.25870 of 2022 7 with the concept of "Honorable acquittal" in DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S. SAMUTHIRAM 4 , held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 367 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Reserve Bank Of India vs Bhopal Singh Panchal on 3 November, 1993

"24. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541]. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 160 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 Next