Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.30 seconds)Section 36 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 14 in The Cinematograph Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Ambalal D. Bhatt vs The State Of Gujarat on 7 March, 1972
In Ambalal B. Bhatt's case (supra) the Apex Court once again reiterated that in a prosecution for an offence under Section 304-A IPC, the Court has to examine as to whether the alleged act of the accused was or not the proximate and efficient cause of the death without intervention of others negligence. "Cause interveniens" which may break the chain of causation was held to be rendering the act not the immediate cause.
The Cinematograph Act, 1952
Article 306 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kurban Hussein Mohamedalli Rangawalla vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 December, 1964
In the Privy Council case of John Oni Akerela v. King (supra), Emperor v. Ombir Ram Pratap, 4 Bombay L.R. 679 and Kurban Hussain Mohamedalli Ranwalla's case , it has been held that for invoking Section 304A of the IPC, the Act causing the death must be the "cause causans" and not merely "causa sine qua non".
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Etc. ... vs Dilip Nathumal Chordia & Anr on 8 February, 1989
The law as to under what circumstances the Courts should pass discharge order under Section 227 of the Code and on what material an order for charge should be passed under Section 228 of the Code has been propounded in various judgments of the Apex Court, but the leading judgments on this point are Century Spinning & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. The State of Maharashtra, 1972 Crl.L.J. 329, State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, , Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr., , Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijja and Ors., , Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad v. Dalip Nathumal Chordia and Anr. (supra), State of Maharashtra, etc.
Bhalchandra Alias Bapu & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 11 April, 1968
In the case of Bhalchandra and Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra, there was an explosion in a factory manufacturing fire works causing deaths and injuries to many. Inspite of absence of direct evidence of immediate cause the proof of storage of prohibited highly sensitive explosives was considered sufficient for slapping a charge under Section 304-A IPC against the license-holders. Their Lordships relied upon the case of Balachandra Wamon Pathe, Crl. Appeal No. 62/1965 to hold that criminal negligence is, gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual particular which having regard to all the facts and circumstances, out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted. Their Lordships were of the view that the manufactures had displayed a high degree of negligence by allowing or causing to be used explosives of sensitive composition in the manufacturing of fire works which must have been the cause of explosion.