Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.22 seconds)

Kantamaneni Ravishankar vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 August, 2020

In support of his contention, he has also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in 2020 SCC OnLine AP 726 in the case of Kantamaneni Ravishankar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh wherein it is held at para No.70 that the posting that was in the Youtube is only to insult the Government and the present Chief Minister and the Government and the Chief Minister cannot constitute one group or two groups. Therefore, it does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 505(2) IPC.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 46 - Cited by 6 - M S Murthy - Full Document

Bilal Ahmed Kaloo vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 August, 1997

At para 61 of the judgment, the judgment of the Apex Court in "Bilal Ahmed Kaloo Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh" was also referred stating that the Apex Court drawn the distinction between Section 153A of IPC and Section 505 (2) of I.P.C wherein it is held by the Apex Court that the common ingredient in both the offences is promoting feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious or racial or linguistic or regional groups or castes or communities. Therefore, Section 153A covers a case where a person by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations attempts to promote such feelings and under Section 505(2) IPC, promotion of such feelings should have been done by making and publishing or circulating any statement or report containing rumor or alarming news. Finally, this Court held that the facts of the case do not constitute any offence under Section 153A or 505(2) IPC.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 167 - K T Thomas - Full Document
1