Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.41 seconds)Section 402 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 385 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Agar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2021
14. As laid down in Agar v/s State of Rajasthan,
reported in 2003 Criminal Law Journal 1997 it is settled law
that, "to constitute an offence under section 399 of IPC
some act amounting to preparation must be proved". But in
the present case as looking into evidence of Pws.1 and 2,
the prosecution has not proved any act preparation for
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:26175
CRL.P No. 2398 of 2022
committing dacoity. Further as laid down in Joseph /vs/
State of Kerala reported in 1993 SCW 2900, the prosecution
must show that there were persons who had conceived
design of committing dacoity. But in the present case there
is no cogent and material evidence to believe the case of
the prosecution that the accused have designed the
committing of dacoity.
Chaturi Yadav And Ors. vs State Of Bihar on 9 March, 1979
In Chaturi Yadav and others Vs. State of Bihar
reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1412, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held that
"Penal Code (45 of 1860), Ss.399 and
402 Conviction under legality. Decision of
Patna High Court, Reversed.
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Akhilesh Singh on 8 December, 2004
"12. Having heard the learned Advocates
appearing for parties and on perusal of records it
would disclose that petitioner/accused was never
traced and non-bailable warrant issued against him
was never executed. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs
AKHILESH SINGH reported in AIR 2005 SCC 268
has held quashing of charge and order discharging
co-accused can be passed, if the proceedings
initiated against co-accused is on similar allegations
and if said judgment had reached finality. It is also
held that discharge of a co-accused by the High
Court by holding that no purpose would be served in
further proceeding with the case, is just and proper.