Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.24 seconds)Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Darpan Kumar Sharma @ Dharban Kumar ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 20 January, 2003
We are of the considered opinion that the ratio laid down in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA's case, cited supra, squarely applies to the case on hand.
R. Kalavathi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 3 July, 2006
In view of the decision in R. Kalavathi v. State of T.N.,(2006) 6 SCC 14, from one single transaction, though consisting of several acts, a habit cannot be attributed to a person, and the stand taken by the detaining authority that the detenu is habitually committing crime and acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintainable of public order cannot be sustained. Moreover, there is no material on record to show that the reach and potentiality of the single incident of robbery was so great as to disturb the even tempo or normal life of the community in the locality or disturb general peace and tranquillity or create a sense of alarm and insecurity in the locality.
Ayub @ Pappukhan Nawabkhan Pathan vs S.N. Sinha And Another on 7 August, 1990
13. The expression habitually is very significant. A person is said to be a habitual criminal who by force of habit or inward disposition is accustomed to commit crimes. It implies commission of such crimes repeatedly or persistently and prima facie there should be continuity in the commission of those offences. (See Ayub v. S.N. Sinha, 1990 (4) SCC 552)