Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Union Of India vs Methu Meda on 6 October, 2021
6.11. To summarize, the present case concerns
mistaken identity and does not involve any serious or
grave offence. The Screening Committee appears to
have overlooked this aspect and reached its conclusion
solely based on the observations in Medu Meda (supra).
C. Anita vs Commissioner Of Police And Additional ... on 11 September, 2003
4. Learned counsel for the respondents also relied
upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court
of Delhi in W.P.(C) No.8751/2021 dated 29.01.2025
titled Anita vs. Commissioner of Police.
Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Ramanuj Upadhyay on 9 July, 2012
In the said order, it has been clearly held that
the respondent, who was one of the accused in that
case, was not involved in the said incident at all. It
has been noted that on a careful analysis of evidence
SURAJ BISHT
2025.12.19 10:23:52+05'30'
9
Item No.105/ Court-IV O.A. No.4974/2024
and facts and circumstances of the case, it could not
be established by the prosecution that the accused,
which included the respondent herein, were involved
in the alleged acts. Consequently, by virtue of the
said order dated 21st April, 2010 all the accused
including the respondent Ramanuj Upadhyay were
acquitted of all charges.
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Devender Kumar Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2011
10. As we have directed in the case of Devender
Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in WP(C)No.
8731/2011 decided on 30 th March, 2012 and
several other similar matters, the petitioner is
directed to issue an appointment letter to the
respondent within four weeks subject to his
otherwise being fit and completing all necessary
formalities and requirements. The respondent would
be entitled to seniority as well as pay and
allowances from the date he joins the service.
We, however, direct that the impugned order with
regard to costs is set aside. Subject to these
modifications, the Tribunal's order is upheld and the
writ petition, to that extent, is dismissed. There is no
order as to costs."
Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1