Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.60 seconds)

State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors vs Vinay Kumar Jain on 19 November, 1996

In the present case convict has been convicted for offence punishable u/s. 3 DPDP Act.  No previous conviction has been alleged or State Vs. Vinay Kr; FIR No.1428-14; PS HN 2/2 proved against convict.  The convict is not involved in any such case, as stated by him.  Convict is having a family to support.   Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accused/convict is facing trial for defacing the public property   by   putting   a   poster   for   advertisement   and   he   is   first   time offender.  I am of considered view that ends of justice would be met if the convict is admonished u/s. 3 of The Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. Further   u/s.   5   of   The   Probation   of   Offender's   Act,   1958,   convict   is directed to deposit Rs. 1000 /­ as the cost of the proceedings of the court. The same has been deposited.  Receipt be issued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 90 - B P Reddy - Full Document

Anil Bhatia & Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 19 February, 2015

(vi)   Reliance can be placed upon  Anil Bhatia vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors reported as WP(C) NO. 6711/2013 wherein the court held that  "unregulated   putting   up   of   Poster/ Banners/   Hoarding   on   the   public property lead to public nuisance and runs counter   to   public   order   within   the meaning   of   Article   19(2)   of   the Constitution."
Delhi High Court Cites 54 - Cited by 76 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 Next