Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 7 in The Press And Registration Of Books Act, 1867 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in Press Council Act, 1965 [Entire Act]
Ahaji C. H. Mohammad Koya vs T. K. S. M. A. Muthukoya on 12 September, 1978
In the cases of Haji C.H.Mohammad Koya Vs. TKSMA.Muthukoya (AIR-1979-SC-154), the Honourable Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
Section 179 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K.M. Mathew vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 19 November, 1991
15. The decision rendered in the case of K.M.Mathew Vs. State of Kerala and another (1992-1-SCC-217), is relating to prosecution of the Chief Editor for certain publication in the Newspaper. His case was dropped by the Magistrate on the ground that it has not been alleged in the complaint that the Chief Editor was responsible for selection of the news item and the publication thereof. There was no averment in the complaint that the Chief Editor had perused the material or edited before its publication or otherwise it was published with his knowledge or consent. When the matter went to the High Court, it quashed the order of the Magistrate on the ground that it was a summons case and the Magistrate had no power after taking cognizance of the offence to drop the proceedings. On appeal to the Honourable Supreme Court, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had been too technical in this regard and on facts found that there was no averment against the Chief Editor, except the motive attributed to him. The Honourable Supreme Court rejected the contention that there was a presumption under Section 7 of the Press and Registration of Books Act against the Chief Editor and reiterated that the Chief Editor's name was not at all mentioned in Section 7 of the said Act.
State Of Punjab vs Nohar Chand on 17 May, 1984
8. The Apex Court had considered provisions of Section 179 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Nohar Chand (1984-SC-1492). The matter is relating to manufacture of sub standard fertilizer and the marketing of the same at different places. The Honourable Supreme Court has held that the place where the sub standard fertilizer was manufactured and the place where it is marketed, the court has jurisdiction to enquiry into or try the case in both the courts.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M.P. Narayana Pillai And Ors. vs M.P. Chacko And Anr. on 11 July, 1986
In the case of M.P.Narayana Pillai Vs. M.P.Chacko (1986-Cri.LJ-2002 (Kerala)), the High Court of Kerala in the matter relating to defamatory proceedings out of the news item published and the congnizance taken by the court was challenged, held as under:-
Dr. Subramaniam Swamy vs Prabhakar S. Pai And Another on 20 April, 1983
The same view was reiterated in the case of Dr.Subramaniam Swamy Vs. Prabhakar S.Pai and another (1984-Cr.LJ-1329).