Judgments - INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
NIRMAL DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB
Held First, it is not in dispute that appellant No. 1 is aged around 75 years; Second, out of three accused two have expired; Third, litigation is pending for quite some time; Fourth, appellant No. 1 has undergone five months in jail. The impugned order is modified insofar as it relates to awarding of the sentence to appellant no. 1. Appellant no. 1 is accordingly awarded rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year with a fine amount of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment Full Judgment
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. FIROZ KHAN @ ARIF KHAN
Held We are constrained to observe that the High Court grossly erred in passing the impugned order without assigning any reason. In our considered opinion, it was a clear case of total non application of mind to the case by the learned Judges because the order impugned neither sets out the facts nor the submissions of the parties nor the findings and nor the reasons as to why the leave to file appeal is declined to the appellant. We, therefore, disapprove Full Judgment
SUJATHA RAVI KIRAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS
RAMBRAKSH @ JALIM Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Kamal Prasad Patade V/s State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
MOHD.JALEES ANSARI & ORS. Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
HARIJAN JIVRAJBHAI BADHABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
BALVEER SINGH AND ANR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANR
A. SIVAPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KERALA
Insofar as sub-clause (ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are: (1) The public servant has abused his position. (2) By abusing that Full Judgment
Suboor Noor V/s State Of U.P. And Another
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJIV JASSI
PRABHAKAR VITHAL GHOLVE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R.RACHAIAH Vs. HOME SECRETARY, BANGALORE
The bare reading of Section 216 reveals that though it is permissible for any Court to alter or add to any charge at any time before judgment is pronounced, certain safeguards, looking into the interest of the accused person who is charged with the additional charge or with the alteration of the additional charge, are also provided specifically under sub-sections (3) and 4 of Section 216 of the Code. Sub-section(3), in no Full Judgment