Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.34 seconds)Section 451 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Mines And Minerals (Development And Regulation) Act, 1957
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Uday Singh on 26 March, 2019
In the decision in State of M.P. v. Uday Singh
((2020) 12 SCC 733) cited supra, the Apex court has
heavily come down against the antisocial elements that
pose a danger to the natural environment and recognized
the significance of confiscation proceedings as the
effective deterrent measure to eradicate such hazards
8/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16496 of 2024
while dealing with the cases of illegal mining.
Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Th. Dgc (Crl.) & Anr on 27 February, 2008
17. The Allahabad High Court, in Akhilesh Kumar
vs. State of U.P. and another cited supra, when confronted
with the conflicting decisions, clarified the issued based on
the decision of a Division Bench of the same court and
rendered a decision against release of the vehicle pending
confiscation proceedings.
Nand Kishore Gupta & Ors vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 8 September, 2010
“In view of the foregoing discussion,
we find that the case of Ved Prakash
(supra) lays down the correct law on
the subject-matter of this reference
and neither Nand vs. State of U.P.,
1997 (1) AWC 41 or Rajiv Kumar
Singh vs. State of U.P. and others,
2017 (5) ADJ 351 nor Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat,
2002 (10) SCC 283, can be said to be
authorities on the power of the
Magistrate to release anything seized
or detained in connection with an
offence committed under the ‘Act’ in
respect of which confiscation
proceedings under Section 72 of the
U.P. Excise Act are pending before
the Collector.”
Virendra Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P. on 25 July, 2023
The Division Bench in (Virendra Gupta vs. State of
U.P). 2019 (6) ADJ 13 432 (DB), on the aforesaid
reference formulated the following question:
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 18 November, 2002
7. The Division Bench interpreting the
various provisions of Cr.P.C. and U.P. Excise Act
and the law laid down by the Apex Court in
(Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat),
2002 (10) SCC 283 and (State GNCJ of Delhi) vs.
Narendra (2014) 13 SCC 100 answered the
aforesaid question in para no.20 of the judgment
6/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.16496 of 2024
which is reproduced as below:
Sunderbha1 Ambalal Desai vs State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002
“In view of the foregoing discussion,
we find that the case of Ved Prakash
(supra) lays down the correct law on
the subject-matter of this reference
and neither Nand vs. State of U.P.,
1997 (1) AWC 41 or Rajiv Kumar
Singh vs. State of U.P. and others,
2017 (5) ADJ 351 nor Sunderbhai
Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat,
2002 (10) SCC 283, can be said to be
authorities on the power of the
Magistrate to release anything seized
or detained in connection with an
offence committed under the ‘Act’ in
respect of which confiscation
proceedings under Section 72 of the
U.P. Excise Act are pending before
the Collector.”