Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.33 seconds)Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shyam Babu & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2008
12. Again, in Shyam Babu & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 15 SCC 418, another two judge bench of the Supreme Court interpreted the provision of Section 364-A IPC, thus:
Vikram Singh @ Vicky & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 August, 2015
13. While an apparent conflict of opinion exists in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, all of equal bench strength, yet, that difficulty may not hold us any longer, since a three judge bench of the Supreme Court, in Vikram Singh alias Vicky & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2015) 9 SCC 502 also had the occasion to deal with this issue. Upon elaborate consideration of the textual background and history of legislation, the Supreme Court interpreted the ingredients of Section 364-A IPC thus :-
State Of U.P vs Ram Chandra Trivedi on 1 September, 1976
In State of U.P. Vs. Ram Chandra Trivedi (1976) 4 SCC 52, such a situation was clearly resolved by providing a simple touchstone to the High Courts - "to try to find out and follow the opinion expressed by the larger benches of the Supreme Court".
Section 359 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 383 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Malleshi vs State Of Karnataka on 15 September, 2004
10. Earlier, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court in Malleshi Vs. State of Karnataka, (2004) 8 SCC 95, laid down three ingredients required to complete an offence under Section 364-A IPC. In para 12 of the aforesaid report, it has been observed as under: