Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 61 (0.43 seconds)Section 2 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The State Of West Bengal vs Anwar All Sarkarhabib Mohamed,The ... on 11 January, 1952
In State
of West Bengal Vs Anwar alias Answar alias Anwar
Rehman [2000 CRI.L.J. 2189], Kolkatta
High Court unequivocally held that terms police report means
police report itself and it cannot include statements of witnesses,
documents referred to in Section 173(5). It was further held that
taking of cognizance will not be invalidated because of omission to
cover the said documents along with the police report. The case
before the Kolkatta High Court was under the NDPS Act, 1985.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 7 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Chaganti Satyanarayan & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 8 May, 1986
In Changati
Satyanarayana (supra), the
Supreme Court explaining the historical background of the legislative
changes which took place in Section 167, stated that they reveal that
Priviso (a) to S. 167(2) has been enacted to not only safeguard the
liberty of the citizens but also to safeguard the interests of the
State or in other words the public. The right of bail granted to
remand prisoners at the end of 90 days or 60 days as the case may be
does not have the effect of rendering the subsequent period of
detention ipso facto illegal or unlawful. The Explanation 1 to the
Proviso obligates the accused being detained in custody inspite of
the expiry of the prescribed period of 90 days or 60 days as the case
may be so long as he does not furnish bail. It will thus be seen that
the anxiety of the Legislature to secure to the remand prisoners
their release from custody is circumscribed by its concern in equal
measure to safeguard the interests of the State as well.
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi vs State, Gnctd & Ors on 19 October, 2012
5.2 Learned
senior counsel relied on decisions in Matabar
Parida, Bishnu Parida and others Vs. State of Orissa [(1975) 2 SCC
220],
in Chaganti
Satyanarayan and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1986 SC
2130],
in Uday
Mohan Acharya Vs. State of Maharastra [2001 (2) GLH 493],
in Sayed
Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State (Delhi) and others [(2012) 12 SCC 1],
in Khimbahadur
Palshiram Thapa Vs. State of Maharastra [1989 (3) Crimes (Bombay)
543],
in Smt.
Kalpana Ghosh Vs. State and others [1996 Criminal Law Journal 1406],
in Aslam
Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharastra [(1992) 4 SCC 272],
in Nagarjan
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2004 Jx(mad)1571],
in Sunil
Vasantrao Phulbande
Vs. State of Maharastra [2002 (3) MhLJ 689],
in State
of U.P. Vs. Lakhsmi Brahman [AIR 1983 SC 439],
in Raghubirsaran
Jain Vs. State of Bengal [1996 (2) Crimes 270],
in Punjaram
Vs. State of Maharastra [2005 Cri.