Judgments
State Of West Bengal Etc vs Manmal Bhutoria & Ors. Etc
HEADNOTE: In May 1967 a case was lodged against the respondent and a Major of the Indian Army who was retired in 1966, alleging that the Major, along with the respondent, had committed offences of conspiracy of criminal misconduct by a public servant in dishonestly abusing his position as a public servant, under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. When the case, which was allotted to the Fourth Additional Special Court under s. 4(.2) of the West Bengal Full Judgment
Palaniappa Gounder vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors
ASHOK DULICHAND VS. MADAHAVLAL DUBE & ANOTHER
NARAYAN GANESH DASTANE VS. SUCHETA NARAYAN DASTANE
Ramkrishna Baburao Maske vs Kishan Shivraj Shelke
ROSY JACOB Vs.JACOB A. CHAKRAMAKKAL
ROHINI KUMARI VS. NARENDRA SINGH
KULBHUSHAN KUMAR VS. RAJ KUMARI & ANR.
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL & ORS. Vs. DOSSIBAI N. B. JEEJEEBHOY
NANI GOPAL MITRA Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LEELA JAIN
The preamble may, no doubt, be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it can, however, not be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Full Judgment
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab
HEADNOTE: The appellant was prosecuted and convicted for theft of electrical energy under s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (9 of 1910). He contended that, as his prosecution was for an offence against the Act it was incompetent, because, it had not been instituted at the instance of any of the persons mentioned in s. 50 of the Act. HELD : The conviction of the appellant must be set aside. The dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in s. 39 Full Judgment
LACHMAN UTAMCHAND KIRIPLANI Vs. MEENA alias MOTA
S. A. Venkataraman vs The State(And Connected Appeal)
HEADNOTE: The appellant who was a public servant was dismissed from service after departmental inquiry. Thereafter he was charged with having committed the offence of criminal misconduct under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was convicted. No sanction under s. 6 of the Act was produced, before the trial Court. It was contended that the Court could not take cognizance of the offence without there being a proper sanction to prosecute : Held, that no sanction under s. Full Judgment