Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.22 seconds)
Sunil vs State(Nct Of Delhi) on 3 January, 2012 cites

Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa on 23 February, 1966

It was further held by their Lordships in Durgacharan Naik(supra) that Section 195 Cr.P.C. does not bar the trial of an accused for the distinct offence under Section 353 of the Penal Code though it may be practically based on the same facts as for the prosecution under Section 186 of the Penal Code which is barred for want of necessary sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C. Thus, in the facts of the present case the Crl. Rev.P. 20/2011 Page 4 of 5 Petitioners are liable to be proceeded for offence under Section 353 IPC as well and not under Section 186 IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 97 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

C. Muniappan & Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 30 August, 2010

3. Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, contends that in the present case the complaint was filed by the Head Constable Brij Mohan Sharma. The case falls within the ambit of explanation to Section 2(d) Cr.P.C. There are two injuries on the head of the Complainant, one on the parietal and the other on the temporal region. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no intention and an offence under Section 308 IPC is not made out. Reliance is placed on Rajesh Sharma @ Raju, 2011 JCC 266 to contend that even in the absence of injury, the Court has to see the intention to find out whether the offence under Section 308 IPC is made out or not. The prosecution under Section 332/353 IPC is not barred in the absence of a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. As a matter of fact, the charge-sheet itself states that along with the chargesheet permission under Section 195 Cr.P.C. has been filed in the sealed cover. Reliance is placed on C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2010 (9) SCC 567.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 633 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1