Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.47 seconds)
Mahesh Chand Joshi vs State on 29 April, 2019 cites

Waman Hari Pathak Since Deceased By His ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 13 January, 1982

21. The law laid down by Straight, J. in the case Reg vs. Idu Beg (1881) 3 ALL.776 has been held good in cases and noticed by three judge bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhalchandra Waman Pathe vs. State of Maharashtra, 1968 MH.L.J. 423; wherein, it has been held that while negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstance out of which the charge has arisen, it was the imperative duty of the accused person to have adopted.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 84 - Full Document

Cherubin Gregory vs The State Of Bihar on 31 July, 1963

25. However, it appears that while noting the law laid down in the aforementioned judgment, the trial court completely ignored the distinct facts of said case wherein, the accused had fixed up an electrically charge copper wire at the back of his house with a view to prevent entry of intruders into his latrine. Whereas, in the instant case, the deceased got electrocuted when he was plastering inside a building near a window and accidentally came in contact with a live part of high voltage fuse and HT bushing over the electric pole installed just in front of the house, where he was allegedly working. And same is also evident from the alleged history given in the MLC of the deceased, available on record as Ex. A1. Even the photographs of the place of incident P-1 and P-2 shows that the electric pole supporting a transformer and DD fuse assembly mounted at the top was installed outside the house of the accused and the top end of the DD fuse assembly was protruding inside the balcony of said house. Same is the observation given by Assistant Electrical Inspector who inspected the spot on 23.06.2008 and filed the inspection report dated 08.06.2009 Ex. PW4/A. In said report, it has been further observed that on account of said protrusion of top end of DD fuse assembly inside the balcony of house no. 266-P/50A, rendered the live parts exposed and accessible from the balcony of first floor of CA No.256/18 Mahesh Chand Joshi Vs. State Page No.12/15 said house. Further that, horizontal clearance between the live part of HT bushing of transformer and the building was found to be 0.54 meters and the live parts of HT bushing were not fully covered with insulating material. Further, in view of above condition of the electric pole, transformer, HT bushing, DD fuse assembly contraventions of provisions of rule 50 (1) (f) and rule 80 (2) (a) of Indian Electricity Rule, 1956 was found to have been made.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 30 - N R Ayyangar - Full Document

Jacob Mathew vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 5 August, 2005

In Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 6 SCC 1, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that in order to hold the existence of criminal rashness or criminal negligence, it shall have to be found out that the rashness was of such a degree as to amount to taking a hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely imminent. The element of criminality is introduced by the accused having run the risk of doing such act with recklessness or indifference to the consequences.
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 1754 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1