Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.32 seconds)Kerala Forest Act, 1961
The Lokpal And Lokayuktas Act, 2013
Section 2 in Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh & Ors vs Jammal Patel & Ors on 12 May, 2001
In Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh (supra), the Supreme Court
laid down the test for the applicability of Section 197 as under;
Sankaran Moitra vs Sadhna Das & Anr on 24 March, 2006
13. Later, in Sankaran Moitra (supra), after extensive
survey of precedents, the Supreme Court encapsulated its
conclusion as to the primary object of Section 197 in the
following words;
P. Arulswami vs The State Of Madras on 29 August, 1966
7. Learned Special Government Pleader submitted that
the jurisdiction of the JFCM Court, Devikulam spreads over a
vast area and the Forest Department is facing issues due to the
inimical stand taken by the Magistrate against its officers. It is
argued that interrogation is part of official duty and cognisance
could have been taken only after following the procedure
prescribed in Section 223(2). Support for the argument is
sought to be drawn from the decisions of the Apex Court in P.
Arulswami v. State of Madras [AIR 1967 SC 776] and
Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. State of Bihar and Others [(2006
1 SCC 557].
B. Saha And Ors vs M. S. Kochar on 27 July, 1979
Interpreting the words 'any offence alleged to have been
committed by the public servant while acting or purporting to
act in the discharge of his official duty, the Apex Court in
B.Saha and Others v M.S. Kochar [AIR 1979 SC 1841] has
observed that if those words are construed narrowly, the
provision will be rendered sterile, for, it is not part of an official
duty to commit an offence and in the wider sense the words will
take under their umbrella every act constituting an offence,
committed in the course of the same transaction in which the
official duty is performed or purports to be performed.
Section 3 in Kerala Forest Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Om Prakash Yadav vs Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay on 2 December, 2019
In support of the
argument, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme
Court in Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay
[2024 KHC 6707] and of the High Court in Alavi C v. State of
Crl.M.C.No.65/25 & con.cases
18
2025:KER:49758
Kerala [2024 KHC 7210]. Alternatively, it is contended that the
2nd petitioner, being a Range Officer, whose appointing
authority is not the Government, is not entitled for the
protection under Section 223(2) of BNSS. It is submitted that,
the unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations are raised
against the Magistrate only to demoralise the judicial officer
and get the case transferred to some other court.
1