Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.26 seconds)M.S. Jaggi vs Subaschandra Mohapatra on 27 April, 1977
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments reported as V. Parakashan v. K.P. Pankajakshan and Anr. 1985 Crl.L.J. 951; Sharif Mohammed v. State of H.P. 2003 Crl.L.J. 2911; M.S. Jaggi v. S. Mohapatra 1977 Crl.L.J. 1902 and submitted that although the order under Section 451 is by way of a temporary arrangement, during the pendency of enquiry or trial, nevertheless, the Court will have to consider some aspects of the merits and cannot act in an injudicious manner while dealing with property.
Sikander Beg vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 1 April, 1992
9. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgments reported as Sikander Beg v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1993 Crl.L.J. 1114; Nitin Gupta v. State of Meghalaya 2005(13) SCC 686; Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar in support of his contention that the Court granting an order of interim custody, pending trial has to consider not only the accusations and version of one or other party, but other factors as to the nature of property, whether it would be produced for the purpose of evidence at the appropriate stage and also whether it would be available at all times for the purposes of the proceedings. Viewed from this perspective, it is urged that the order of the trial Court does not require to be disturbed.
Ashok Kumar Singh And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 22 November, 1991
9. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgments reported as Sikander Beg v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1993 Crl.L.J. 1114; Nitin Gupta v. State of Meghalaya 2005(13) SCC 686; Ashok Kumar v. State of Bihar in support of his contention that the Court granting an order of interim custody, pending trial has to consider not only the accusations and version of one or other party, but other factors as to the nature of property, whether it would be produced for the purpose of evidence at the appropriate stage and also whether it would be available at all times for the purposes of the proceedings. Viewed from this perspective, it is urged that the order of the trial Court does not require to be disturbed.
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
V. Parakashan vs K.P Pankajakshan And Anr. on 2 April, 1985
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments reported as V. Parakashan v. K.P. Pankajakshan and Anr. 1985 Crl.L.J. 951; Sharif Mohammed v. State of H.P. 2003 Crl.L.J. 2911; M.S. Jaggi v. S. Mohapatra 1977 Crl.L.J. 1902 and submitted that although the order under Section 451 is by way of a temporary arrangement, during the pendency of enquiry or trial, nevertheless, the Court will have to consider some aspects of the merits and cannot act in an injudicious manner while dealing with property.