Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.30 seconds)
Ch. Satish vs The State Of Telangana on 26 December, 2023 cites

Union Of India vs Methu Meda on 6 October, 2021

Therefore, the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in Methu Meda v. Union of India [Methu Meda v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 3897 of 2013, order dated 27-9-2013 (MP)] and the Division Bench in Union of India v. Methu Meda [Union of India v. Methu Meda, 2013 SCC OnLine MP 10701] are not sustainable in law, as discussed hereinabove."
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 68 - J K Maheshwari - Full Document

Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016

In the case of Gugulothu Nagu Vs. The State of Telangana 5 rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department , a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India including the decision in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (cited supra) and also referred to the phrase "Honourable acquittal" and also the definition of "Moral turpitude" and has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 1443 - A Mishra - Full Document

Commissioner Of Police And Anr vs Mehar Singh on 2 July, 2013

"11. Moral turpitude is defined as "An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." The involvement of the petitioner in an offence of 'moral turpitude' would arise for consideration if there is a conviction recorded against him. But once there is an acquittal of the accused and more so acquittal is held to be on merits and not on technical grounds, the issue of 'moral turpitude' becomes redundant. The principle of law laid down in MEHAR SINGH's case (1 supra) and BUNTY's case (3 supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned Special Government Pleader for Home, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case since it is held that the acquittal of the petitioner was not on technical grounds or benefit of doubt."
Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 370 - Full Document

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bunty on 14 March, 2019

"11. Moral turpitude is defined as "An act of baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellow men, or to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." The involvement of the petitioner in an offence of 'moral turpitude' would arise for consideration if there is a conviction recorded against him. But once there is an acquittal of the accused and more so acquittal is held to be on merits and not on technical grounds, the issue of 'moral turpitude' becomes redundant. The principle of law laid down in MEHAR SINGH's case (1 supra) and BUNTY's case (3 supra), on which reliance is placed by the learned Special Government Pleader for Home, is not applicable to the facts of the instant case since it is held that the acquittal of the petitioner was not on technical grounds or benefit of doubt."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 45 - A Mishra - Full Document

Gugulothu Nagu vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 25 October, 2021

In the case of Gugulothu Nagu Vs. The State of Telangana 5 rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department , a Coordinate Bench of this Court has considered several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India including the decision in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India (cited supra) and also referred to the phrase "Honourable acquittal" and also the definition of "Moral turpitude" and has held as under:
Telangana High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - B V Reddy - Full Document

Dy.Inspector Gen.Of Police & Anr vs S.Samuthiram on 30 November, 2012

or "Clean acquittal". Under criminal law, "Acquittal" means that the charge against the accused is not proved. There may be varying situations like acquittal recorded by giving benefit of doubt to the accused; acquittal recorded for lack of evidence or failure to prove charges against the accused; there may be situations where prosecution may not adduce evidence of crucial witnesses; some of the crucial witnesses may have died; there may be negligence on part of the prosecution in the investigation and production of crucial witnesses before the court. In the backdrop of the given illustrations it would be difficult to exhaustively lay down parameters as to what would constitute "Honorable acquittal". The Court has to go by the fact situation existing in each case. The Supreme Court while dealing with the concept of "Honorable acquittal" in DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE v. S. SAMUTHIRAM 6 , held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 367 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Reserve Bank Of India vs Bhopal Singh Panchal on 3 November, 1993

"24. The meaning of the expression 'honourable acquittal' came up for consideration before this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal [(1994) 1 SCC 541]. In that case, this Court has considered the impact of Regulation 46(4) dealing with honourable acquittal by a criminal court on the disciplinary proceedings. In that context, this Court held that the mere acquittal does not entitle an employee to reinstatement in service, the acquittal, it was held, has to be honourable. The expressions 'honourable acquittal', 'acquitted of blame', 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by 6 (2013) 1 SCC 598 10 TMD,J W.P.No. 912 of 2023 judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression 'honourably acquitted'. When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 160 - P B Sawant - Full Document
1   2 Next