Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.46 seconds)Section 197 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 407 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
R.S. Nayak vs A.R. Antulay & Anr on 17 April, 1986
16. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate for Mr. Singh cited several decisions reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court, page 287, Skreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs. State of Bombay; , Matajog Dobey vs. H. C. Bhari; 1984 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) page 172, R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay; , R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Anr,, 1999 Criminal Law Journal page 3101, Champabai vs. M. Girijapathy and Ors. and , Gouri Shankar Prasad vs. State and Anr., in support of his contention. We have perused those decisions wherein it has been laid down that under given circumstances sanction for prosecuting a public servant for a criminal offence is necessary.
Sebastian M. Hongray vs Union Of India And Others on 24 November, 1983
In support of his contention he has cited decisions reported in AIR 1995 SC page 287, Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli and
Anr. vs. State of Bombay; , Matajog Dobey vs. H. C. Bhari; , Saurendra Mohan Basu vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar; , Pramatha Nath Talukdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar; , Union of India vs. J. N. Singha; , State of Gujrat vs. Sardarbegum and Ors.; 1984 SCC (Cri) page 172, R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay; , Sebastian M. Hongray vs. Union of India and Ors.; AIR 1984 SC page 1026, Sebastian M Hongray vs, Union of India; , Mahesh Chand vs. State of Rajasthan; 1988 SCC (Cri) page 372, A. R. Antulay vs. R. S. Nayak and Anr.; , State of Haryana vs. Naresh Kumar Bali; , R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Anr.; 1999 Criminal Law Journal page 3101, Champabai vs. N. Girijapathy and Ors.; 2000 SCC (Cri) page 135, State of Karnataka vs. Arun Kumar Agarwal and Ors.; 2000 SCC (Cri) page 147, State of H. P. vs. Lekh Raj and Anr.; 2000 SC page 3517, Gouri Shankar Prasad vs. State of Bihar; , Mohindro vs. State of Punjab and Ors.; 2002 SCC (Cri) 789, S. P., Forest Cell, Adyar and Anr. vs. Kannans Company.
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 5 December, 1995
16. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate for Mr. Singh cited several decisions reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court, page 287, Skreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs. State of Bombay; , Matajog Dobey vs. H. C. Bhari; 1984 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) page 172, R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay; , R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Anr,, 1999 Criminal Law Journal page 3101, Champabai vs. M. Girijapathy and Ors. and , Gouri Shankar Prasad vs. State and Anr., in support of his contention. We have perused those decisions wherein it has been laid down that under given circumstances sanction for prosecuting a public servant for a criminal offence is necessary.
Smt. Champabai vs M. Girijapathy And Others on 22 March, 1999
16. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate for Mr. Singh cited several decisions reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court, page 287, Skreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs. State of Bombay; , Matajog Dobey vs. H. C. Bhari; 1984 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) page 172, R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay; , R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Anr,, 1999 Criminal Law Journal page 3101, Champabai vs. M. Girijapathy and Ors. and , Gouri Shankar Prasad vs. State and Anr., in support of his contention. We have perused those decisions wherein it has been laid down that under given circumstances sanction for prosecuting a public servant for a criminal offence is necessary.
Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs The State Of Bombay(With Connected ... on 22 December, 1954
16. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate for Mr. Singh cited several decisions reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court, page 287, Skreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs. State of Bombay; , Matajog Dobey vs. H. C. Bhari; 1984 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) page 172, R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay; , R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Anr,, 1999 Criminal Law Journal page 3101, Champabai vs. M. Girijapathy and Ors. and , Gouri Shankar Prasad vs. State and Anr., in support of his contention. We have perused those decisions wherein it has been laid down that under given circumstances sanction for prosecuting a public servant for a criminal offence is necessary.
Matajog Dobey vs H. C. Bhari(With Connected Appeal) on 31 October, 1955
16. Mr. Mukherjee learned Advocate for Mr. Singh cited several decisions reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court, page 287, Skreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs. State of Bombay; , Matajog Dobey vs. H. C. Bhari; 1984 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) page 172, R. S. Nayak vs. A. R. Antulay; , R. Balakrishna Pillai vs. State of Kerala and Anr,, 1999 Criminal Law Journal page 3101, Champabai vs. M. Girijapathy and Ors. and , Gouri Shankar Prasad vs. State and Anr., in support of his contention. We have perused those decisions wherein it has been laid down that under given circumstances sanction for prosecuting a public servant for a criminal offence is necessary.