Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 454 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs S. Sree Rama Rao on 10 April, 1963
The learned Counsel for the Respondents also placed reliance upon
the judgment in State of Andhra Pradesh and others vs. S. Sree
Rama Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 25 wherein the 3-Judge Bench of the
Supreme Court in paragraph 7 held as follows:
Union Of India vs H. C. Goel on 30 August, 1963
"9. It is therefore clear that the High Court was not
competent to consider the question whether the evidence
before the Tribunal and the Government was insufficient
or unreliable to establish the charge against the
respondent. It could have considered only the fact
whether there was any evidence at all which, if believed
by the Tribunal, would establish the charge against the
respondent. Adequacy of that evidence to sustain the
charge is not a question before the High Court when
exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This view was reiterated in Union of India v.
H.C., Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364.
State Of Madras vs G. Sundaram on 9 October, 1964
5 Learned Counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned
orders. He submitted that there was sufficient evidence on record to
establish the charges against the original Petitioner and the said
charges have been held to be proved and this Court in exercise of writ
jurisdiction ought not to re-appreciate the evidence on record. He
submitted that the original Petitioner was let off lightly. He placed
reliance on the judgment of the 5-Judge Constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in State of Madras vs. G. Sundaram, AIR 1965 SC
1103, and in particular paragraphs 9 and 10 which read thus:
Section 9 in The Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 [Entire Act]
1