Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.25 seconds)Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Chaman Lal vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 3 December, 2020
6.5 Yet in another decision in Chaman Lal v. The State of
Himachal Pradesh, rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1229
of 2017 on 03.12.2020, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 988 the Apex
Court has observed as under:
Babu vs State Of Kerala on 11 August, 2010
"9.1 In the case of Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189),
this Court had reiterated the principles to be followed in an
appeal against acquittal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. In paragraphs
12 to 19, it is observed and held as under:
Shambhoo Missir And Another vs State Of Bihar on 24 July, 1990
The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in
arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take
into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken
into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary
to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also
be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo
Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap
v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State
of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P
(2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007)
13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5
SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla
Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Ram Veer Singh And Ors on 5 September, 2007
The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in
arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take
into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken
into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary
to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also
be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo
Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap
v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State
of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P
(2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007)
13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5
SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla
Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)
S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors on 29 April, 2008
The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in
arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take
into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken
into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary
to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also
be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo
Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap
v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State
of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P
(2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007)
13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5
SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla
Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)
Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors vs State Of A.P Rep.By Public Prosecutor on 6 May, 2009
The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in
arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take
into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken
into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary
to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also
be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo
Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap
v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State
of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P
(2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007)
13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5
SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla
Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)