Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)
The State Of Maharashtra vs Talimunisa Rais Ahmed on 28 February, 2020 cites

Murlidhar Rao S/O Manik Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2012

8 The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka3 has held that unless, the conclusions reached by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand, they are likely to result in grave injustice, Appellate Court should not interfere with the conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal 3 (2014) 5 SCC 730 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:22 ::: 7/13 apeal-843-04(221).doc is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view.
Karnataka High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 39 - S Satyanarayana - Full Document

Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs The State Of Gujarat on 2 May, 1996

We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court. 9 The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi Vs. State of Gujarat 4 has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court finds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own conclusions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 922 - M K Mukherjee - Full Document

Shridhar Gangaram Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2015

11 Mr. Joshi submitted that this was a case where PW-1 in his examination-in-chief says that he went to the house of accused and asked her how much money he has to pay to get his house repaired and it is not 4 1996 SCC (cri) 972 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:22 ::: 8/13 apeal-843-04(221).doc the case that accused first demanded the money for discharging her official function. Mr. Joshi submitted that where a man has not demanded a bribe, he is only suspected to be in the habit of taking bribes, and he is tempted with a bribe just to see whether he would accept it or not and to trap him, if he accepts it, it will be an illegitimate trap and accused cannot be convicted. In fact it will be an offence on the part of the persons taking part in that unless authorised by an act of parliament. Mr. Joshi relies on a judgment of Madras High Court in the case of M. S. Mohiddin Vs. State5 Mr. Joshi also relied on a similar issue decided by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Shridhar Chavan Vs. State of Maharashtra6 12 I do not wish to go into all these legal submissions because I am convinced that some of the contradictions, which I am going to list out below, itself are enough for dismissing the appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - V M Kanade - Full Document

V.Sejappa vs State By Police Insp.Lokayukta on 12 April, 2016

In V Sejappa Vs. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga7, the court was considering the presumption under Section 20, when it arises and what was the duty of court while invoking the provisions of Section 20. The court after observing that the proof of demand is sine-qua-non for considering the offence under Section 7 of PC Act, held that initially burden of proving that accused accepted or obtained 7 (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150 Meera Jadhav ::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 24/03/2020 04:56:22 ::: 11/13 apeal-843-04(221).doc the amount other than legal remuneration is upon prosecution. It is only when such initial burden regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is successfully discharged by prosecution, then burden of proving the defence shifts upon accused and a presumption would arise under Section 20 of PC Act. This judgment was relied upon by Mr. Joshi and he further submitted that if the evaluation of the evidence and the findings recorded by the trial court do not suffer from any illegality or perversity and the grounds on which the trial court has based its conclusion are reasonable and plausible, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal if another view is possible and the view taken by the trial court also is possible, the Appellate court should not interfere.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 173 - R Banumathi - Full Document
1   2 Next