Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)V.L. Tresa vs State Of Kerala on 9 February, 2001
14. Learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. L. Tresa Vs.
State of Kerala (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has
considered the ingredients of Section 201.
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation ... vs N.R.Suresh Babu ... 1St on 4 October, 2021
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat
vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in MANU/ SC/1113
2023, adverting to the earlier propositions of law in its earlier
decisions in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan
and ors, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 and The State of
Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC
659 and The State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 338, has held as under:
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc on 12 April, 1996
11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Gujarat
vs. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in MANU/ SC/1113
2023, adverting to the earlier propositions of law in its earlier
decisions in the cases of State of Tamil Nadu vs. N.Suresh Rajan
and ors, reported in (2014) 11 SCC 709 and The State of
Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, reported in (1996) 4 SCC
659 and The State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni, reported in
(2000) 6 SCC 338, has held as under:
State Of T.Nadu Tr.Insp.Of Police vs N Suresh Rajan & Ors on 6 January, 2014
"10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of
considering an application for discharge the court must
proceed on an assumption that the material which has
been brought on record by the prosecution is true and
evaluate said material in order to determine whether
the facts emerging from the material taken on its face
value, disclose the existence of the ingredients
necessary of the offence alleged. This Court in State of
Tamil Nadu vs. N. Suresh Rajan and ors, (2014)
11 SCC 709 adverting to the earlier propositions of
law laid down on this subject has held:
Palvinder Kaur vs The State Of Punjab(Rup ... on 22 October, 1952
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observes that
having regard to the language used, mere suspicion would not
be sufficient. There must be available on record cogent
evidence that the accused has caused the evidence to
disappear in order to screen another known or unknown. The
fore-most necessity being that the accused must have the
knowledge or have reason to believe that such an offence has
been committed. This observation finds support in the earlier
decision Palvinder Kaur Vs. State of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Roshan Lal & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 3 December, 1964
354). and in Roshan Lal Vs. State Punjab (AIR 1965 SC
1413) wherein the observation are as follows: