Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.21 seconds)

Hiralal D. Karnavt @ ... vs The State Of Maharashtra on 19 December, 2019

5. Based thereon, Mr. J.R. Sharma submitted that the essential ingredients of Section 3 of the DPDP Act are not satisfied, inasmuch as there is no allegation of defacement by writing or marking with ink, chalk, paint or any other material. The learned counsel placing reliance upon a decision dated 17.09.2008 of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in T.S. Marwah & Ors. vs. State in CRL.M.C.1920/2008, while dealing with a pari-materia provision, wherein it was held that mere putting up of a banner would not fall within the ambit of Section 3(1) of the West Bengal Prevention of Defacement of Property Act, 1976, submitted that the FIR calls for quashing.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 189 - Full Document
1