Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (3.34 seconds)Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sanwat Singh & Others vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 December, 1960
So far as Amrit Singh's case, (supra) is concerned, the view propounded therein has been doubted by the Supreme Court in the case of Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, .
Bhim Singh Rup Singh vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 November, 1973
Referring to some earlier decisions (Ramabhupala Reddy v. State of A.P., one Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra, , their Lordships further held :
Pala Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 August, 1972
Further, in the case of Pala Singh v. State of Punjab, , it was observed that 'substantial and compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient cogent reasons', 'strong reasons' are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so the appellate court should not only consider every matter on record having a bearing on the question, of fact and the reasons given by the Court below in support of order of acquittal, but should express the reasons in its own judgment which led it to hold that the acquittal was not justified.
Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli vs The State Of Bombay(With Connected ... on 22 December, 1954
The facts of Shreekantiah's case (supra) are quite distinguishable from the present case.
Amrik Singh vs The State Of Pepsu on 28 February, 1955
13. The learned appellate court applying the principles laid down in the cases of Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. State of Bombay, and Amrik Singh v. State of Pepsu, , and considering the provision of Section 197, Cr. P.C. held that the prosecution against the respondents was bad for want of sanction.
Baijnath Gupta And Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 May, 1965
So far as Amrit Singh's case, (supra) is concerned, the view propounded therein has been doubted by the Supreme Court in the case of Baijnath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, .
H.H.B. Gill vs The King on 17 February, 1948
In this case their Lordships followed the principles laid down in the cases of Dr. Hari Ram Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1939 FC 43 : 40 Cri LJ 468 and H.H.B. Gill v. The King, AIR (35) 1948 Privy Council 128 : 49 Cri LJ 503.
Albert West Meads vs The King on 19 April, 1948
The views expressed in the aforesaid two decisions, viz., AIR 1920 FC 43 and AIR 1948 PC 138 : 49 Cri LJ 503 was followed by the Judicial Committee in Albert West Meads v. The King, 75 Ind App 185 : (AIR 1948 PC 156 : 49 Cri LJ 660 and Phanindra Chandra v. The King, 76 Ind Appeal 10, AIR 1949 PC 117 : 50 Cri LJ 395 and has been approved by the Supreme Court in R.M. Mathana v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1944 SC 456 (sic). In the opinion of the Supreme Court it is not every offence committed by a public servant that requires sanction for prosecution under Section 197(1), Cr. P.C., nor even every act done by him while he was actually engaged in the performance of official duties; but if the act complained of is directly concerned with his official duties so that, if questioned it could as claimed to have been done by virtue of the office, then sanction would be necessary. It is the quality of the act that is important and if it fails within the scope and range of his official duties the protection contemplated by Section 197 will be attracted. An offence may be entirely unconnected with the official duty as such or it may be committed within the scope of the official duty. Where it is unconnected with the official duty there can be no protection, it is only when it. is either within the scope of the official duty or in excess of it that the protection is claimable.