Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs SYED RAHIM SYED JANIMIYA AND ORS
Sanjay Khanderao Wadane Versus State of Maharashtra
POPAT MANIKRAO KOKATE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Sangram & Ors Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Law laid down - (1) Testimony of interested witnesses can be relied upon for conviction. (2) Some discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses which does not affect the case cannot be the basis for rejection of the evidence. Full Judgment
Mahipalsingh and Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh
RAJIV KUMAR Versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.
The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means Full Judgment
SAMBHAJI KACHRU KOLHE Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
SANKET S/O. DIPAK GUPTA Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE HON. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS MANTRALAYA MUMBAI AND ANOTHER
Rupesh Kumar Singh & Another Vs. State Of U.P. & 3 Others
RAJKISHORE PUROHIT VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Versus M. SIVAMANI
While the bar against cognizance of a specified offence is mandatory, the same has to be understood in the context of the purpose for which such a bar is created. The bar is not intended to take away remedy against a crime but only to protect an innocent person against false or frivolous proceedings by a private person. The expression “the public servant or his administrative superior” cannot exclude the High Court. It is clearly implicit in the direction of Full Judgment