Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Information Technology Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 66 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2005
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend that the complaint nowhere indicts the petitioner
since the complaint alleges that the petitioner has kept the
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:20179
CRL.P No. 2396 of 2024
mobile phone in the electric switch board. It is his case that
the mobile phone that is seized has no capacity to capture of
images and the question of video recording does not arise at
all. On this score alone, it is his submission that the
proceedings are liable to be quashed. He would submit that
none of the offences that are alleged would get attracted in the
case at hand qua the facts. He would further submit that the
crime registered in highly improbable and therefore, it should
be quashed following the judgment of the Apex court in the
case of State of Haryana vs Bajan Lal1.
Mohit @ Sonu & Anr vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 1 July, 2013
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would seek to contend that the mobile phone seized cannot
even take pictures or record videos. It is a matter of evidence,
as in the considered view of the Court Section 354C of IPC,
which has come into force by way of an amendment in the year
2013, as a purpose for introduction of the said provision. The
High Court of Delhi in the case of Sonu vs State, through SHO
reported in 2023 SCC Online Del 1955, considering the purport
of Section 354C of IPC has held as follows
".... ... ....