Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)

Assistant Collector Of Customs & Anr vs U.L.R. Malwani And Anr on 16 October, 1968

In the judgment relied by Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in the case of The Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a previous lawful 7 Cr.M.P. No. 702 of 2011 With Cr.M.P. No. 918 of 2011 trial before a competent court, the petitioner of that case has secured a verdict of acquittal which verdict is binding on his prosecutor and in that case, the reason was that the proceeding before the Collector of Customs was a criminal trial and earlier case was arising out of civil dispute and in view of that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has come to that conclusion. The facts of the present case is otherwise and thus, that judgment is also not helping opposite party no.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 139 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Choudhury Parveen Sultana vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 7 January, 2009

In the judgment relied by Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 in the case of Choudhury Parveen Sultana (supra), the allegation was that the complainant threatened to withdraw the complaint case and in view of that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has interfered and clause of Section 197 Cr.P.C. was not attracted in that case. The facts of that case was different and thus, that judgment is not helping opposite party no.2.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 96 - A Kabir - Full Document

Indira Devi (Smt.) vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 5 October, 2006

13. There is no doubt that if an act is not done in official capacity, Section 197 Cr.P.C. is not attracted, however, if the act has been done in official capacity, Section 197 Cr.P.C. is attracted. The facts as mentioned hereinabove, disclosed that the petitioners were discharging official duty. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another, reported in (2021) 8 SCC 768. Paragraph 10 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 2 - Cited by 19 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Ram Saran (A.S.I.M.)(Pno ... vs State Of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy. Home & ... on 23 March, 2021

14. Further if a complaint case is being filed out of vengeance, every care is being taken to make out a case against the accused persons and if such a situation is there, responsibility on the shoulder of the High Court is much higher and the Court is required to look into the things in between the one. A reference may be made to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haji Iqbal @ Bala through S.P.O.A. v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 946.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - I Ali - Full Document
1