Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.94 seconds)
Smt. Shakeela vs State on 5 March, 2012 cites

State Of W.B vs Mohammed Khalid on 24 November, 1994

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 20.03.2011 passed by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, Karkardooma Courts Delhi, in a case bearing FIR No.320/97 PS Shahdara titled as State Vs. Mohd, Shakeela Vs. State & Ors. (CA No.25/11) D.O.O. 05.03.2012 Page No. 1 of pages 13 Arman Etc., whereby the accused persons (respondents no.2 to 5 herein) were acquitted by Ld. Trial Court, the appellant (complainant) has preferred the present appeal on 19.04.2011.
Supreme Court of India Cites 61 - Cited by 243 - S Mohan - Full Document

State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. vs Chet Ram And Ors. on 4 April, 1997

In 2003 Cr.L.J 236 (HP) titled as State of H.P. Vs. Chet Ram, it has been held, "Section 354 of the Cr.P.Code makes it obligatory to the Trial Court to specifically state the offences for which the accused has either been convicted and sentenced or of which he has been acquitted. Failure on the part of the trial court to record a finding of acquittal in respect of a particular offence would not amount to implied acquittal."
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - R L Khurana - Full Document

State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Gowthu Ranghunayakulu And Ors on 19 November, 1986

In AIR 1987 SC 40 titled as State of A.P. Vs. G. Rangunayakulu it has been held, "when Trial Court did not Shakeela Vs. State & Ors. (CA No.25/11) D.O.O. 05.03.2012 Page No. 11 of pages 13 formulate separate pointed for decision and have considered together all the aspects of the offences alleged to have been committed, the judgment is liable to be set aside and the Court shall be directed to deliver a proper judgment."
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - B C Ray - Full Document
1   2 Next