Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.98 seconds)
Harbhajan Wadhwa vs State on 30 July, 2010 cites

Md.Ibrahim & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 4 September, 2009

20. As to argument raised by Pramod Kathuria that the transactions give rise to only a civil dispute and not a criminal action, it is apt to refer to a recent decision of the Apex Court in Md. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, 2009(8) S.C.C. 751, wherein it has been observed that :­ "there is a growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 1195 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Bandi Pandu vs Kola Balaji Varma And Anr. on 1 August, 2002

In M/s. OPTS Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. State of A.P., (A.P.)(FB), 2001(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 499 ( followed in Bandi Pandu v. Kola Balaji Varma, (A.P.) 2004(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 13) it was held that if the complainant alleges, and proves that the accused had a dishonest intention not to pay the amount due to him even at the time of issuance of the cheque, and that such issuance of the cheque, which was dishonoured, had caused damage to his mind, body or reputation, the ingredients of Section 420 IPC can be said to have been established, then in such an event, the drawer can be convicted for an offence under Section 420 IPC. Accused's knowledge about non­availability of funds is unnecessary to be pleaded or proved. The only pleading required is about the dishonest intention on the part of the drawer of the cheque. Dishonour of cheque per se is made an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

K.N. Beena vs Muniyappan And Another on 18 October, 2001

26. As regards the sentence vide order dated 11.05.06, Ld. Trial Court awarded to Pramod Kumar Kathuria Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with a direction to pay an amount of Rs. One Lakh as compensation to the complainant and in default Simple imprisonment for six months. An argument was raised regarding court's power to award imprisonment in default of payment of compensation. A clarificatory order was passed by Ld. Trial Court on 12.05.06 in this regard. It was stated that a sentence can be imposed on accused in default of non­payment of compensation amount and simultaneously complainant can seek the remedy for recovery of the compensation amount by way of Sec. 421, Cr.P.C. The view of Ld. Trial Court is further fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rachpal v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 2710 and K N Veena v. Muniyappan and anr. 2001 VIII AD (SC) 566, wherein the order of compensation coupled with imprisonment in default of compensation passed by High Court was upheld by Apex Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 1424 - S N Variava - Full Document

Dinesh Seth vs State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi on 18 August, 2008

31. However, this argument cannot be sustained in the light of settled law, as reiterated by Apex Court in Dinesh Seth v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 (11) Scale 470, that in certain situations an accused can be convicted of an offence with which he may not have been specifically charged and that an error, omission or irregularity in the framing of charge is, by itself, not sufficient for upsetting the conviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 42 - G S Singhvi - Full Document
1   2 3 Next