Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.24 seconds)The Delimitation Act, 1972
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Anvar P.V vs P.K.Basheer & Ors on 18 September, 2014
With this clarification, the law stated in para 24 of Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 does not need to be revisited.
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Shafhi Mohammad vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 April, 2018
73.2. The clarification referred to above is that the required certificate under Section 65-B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the device concerned, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the "computer" happens to be a part of a "computer system" or "computer network" and it becomes impossible to physically bring such system or network to the court, then the only means of providing information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65-B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65-B(4).
Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal on 14 July, 2020
In para 22, the reference of the judgment of Arjun Panditrao (supra) has been given which is as under:-