Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.30 seconds)Section 100 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
B. Saha And Ors vs M. S. Kochar on 27 July, 1979
In B. Saha and Ors. v. M. S. Kochar,
[1979] 4 SCC 177, it was held :
Matajog Dobey vs H. C. Bhari(With Connected Appeal) on 31 October, 1955
Otherwise the entire purpose of affording protection to a public servant
without sanction shall stand frustrated. For instance a police officer in
discharge of duty may have to use force which may be an offence for the
prosecution of which the sanction may be necessary. But if the same officer
commits an act in course of service but not in discharge of his duty and
without any justification therefor then the bar under Section 197 of the
Code is not attracted. To what extent an act or omission performed by a
public servant in discharge of his duty can be deemed to be official was
explained by this Court in Matajog Dobey v. H. C. Bhari, AIR (1956) SC 44
thus:
S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal) on 3 December, 1957
In S.A. Venkataraman v. The State, AIR (1958) SC 107 and in C. R. Bansi v.
The State of Maharashtra, [1970] 3 SCC 537 this Court has held that:
C. R. Bansi vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 December, 1970
In S.A. Venkataraman v. The State, AIR (1958) SC 107 and in C. R. Bansi v.
The State of Maharashtra, [1970] 3 SCC 537 this Court has held that:
State Of Maharashtra vs Dr. Budhikota Subharao on 16 March, 1993
The above position was illuminatingly highlighted in State of Maharashtra
v. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao, [1993] 3 SCC 339.
Kalicharan Mahapatra vs State Of Orissa on 4 August, 1998
When the newly-worded section appeared in the Code (Section 197) with the
words "when any person who is or was a public servant" (as against the
truncated expression in the corresponding provision of the old Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898) a contention was raised before this Court in
Kalicharan Mahapatra v. State of Orissa [1998] 6 SCC 411 that the legal
position must be treated as changed even in regard to offences under the
Old Act and New Act also. The said contention was, however, repelled by
this Court wherein a two-Judge Bench has held thus:
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003
Above position was highlighted in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala,
AIR (1996) SC 901, in State of M.P. v. M.P. Gupta, [2004] 2 SCC 349, in
State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra
Jew [2004] 8 SCC 40, and in Shri S.K. Lutshi and Anr. v. Shri Primal
Debnath and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC 31.
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Awadh Kishore Gupta And Ors on 18 November, 2003
Above position was highlighted in R. Balakrishna Pillai v. State of Kerala,
AIR (1996) SC 901, in State of M.P. v. M.P. Gupta, [2004] 2 SCC 349, in
State of Orissa through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Ors. v. Ganesh Chandra
Jew [2004] 8 SCC 40, and in Shri S.K. Lutshi and Anr. v. Shri Primal
Debnath and Anr., [2004] 8 SCC 31.