Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Discharge

    Uploaded by

    prajvalbackup
    16 views2 pages
    oners were in conscious possession and, therefore, on the basis of mere possession of live dings cannot continue qua the petitioners under the Arms Act, 1959. d principles of law, as discussed above, and considering the fact that the petitioners had left behind thluggage by mistake and/or inadvertent oversight, when they started their respective journeys and that of the presence of the live cartridge/cartridges in their handbags till the same were detected by the ning of the baggages at the conc

    Original Title

    discharge

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    oners were in conscious possession and, therefore, on the basis of mere possession of live dings cannot continue qua the petitioners under the Arms Act, 1959. d principles of law, as discussed above, and considering the fact that the petitioners had left behind thluggage by mistake and/or inadvertent oversight, when they started their respective journeys and that of the presence of the live cartridge/cartridges in their handbags till the same were detected by the ning of the baggages at the conc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    16 views2 pages

    Discharge

    Uploaded by

    prajvalbackup
    oners were in conscious possession and, therefore, on the basis of mere possession of live dings cannot continue qua the petitioners under the Arms Act, 1959. d principles of law, as discussed above, and considering the fact that the petitioners had left behind thluggage by mistake and/or inadvertent oversight, when they started their respective journeys and that of the presence of the live cartridge/cartridges in their handbags till the same were detected by the ning of the baggages at the conc

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Jurisdiction Citations:

    1. Manish Ratan and Ors. Vs State of M.P and Anr. Reported in 2007 volume-1 SCC
    262.

    2. Y. Abraham Ajith and Others Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Another reported in
    2004, SCC Crl-2134.

    3. Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (1999) 8 SCC 728

    4. Bhanu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan 7 Anr in CASE NO: Appeal (crl.) 587 of
    2008 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 79 of 2006).

    5. Sonu and Ors Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. in W.P (Crl.). No.1266/2007,
    Decision on 10.10.2007.

    Discharge U/s 239 CrPC:

    1. State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy AIR 1977 SC 1489

    2. State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa and Ors. AIR 1996 SC 1744

    3. Omwati and Anr Vs. State AIR 2001 SC 1507

    4. Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs. State of W.B. AIR 2000 SC 522

    5. Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad Vs. Dilip N. Chartia 1989 (1) SCC 715

    6. State of Bihar vs. Ramesh singh AIR 1977 SC 2018

    7. Supdt. S. Remembrancer of legal affairs W.B. Vs. Anil Kumar Bhunja- AIR 1989 SC
    52

    8. Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Admn. (1996)9 SCC 766

    9. State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni AIR 2000 SC 2583

    Allegations do not attract Section 498A IPC:

    1. State of H.P.V Nikku Ram & Ors 1995 (6) SCC 219

    2. V.Bhagat Vs. Mrs.D.Bhagat AIR 1994 SC 710

    3. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 299 OF 2003 MANJU RAM KALITA vs. STATE OF
    <st1:country-region w:st="on">ASSAM</st1:country-region>

    4. Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414

    5. Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078

    6. Dr.N.G.Dastane Vs. Mrs.S.Dastane (1975) 2 SCC 326


    7. Richhpal Kaur v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1991 (2)

    8. Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare v State of Maharashtra & Ors 1990 (2) RCR 18

    9. Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy AIR 1998 SC 121

    Material evidence required on demand of dowry:

    1) M. Srinivasulu v. State of A.P., AIR 2007 SC 3146,

    2) Ran Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr, Case no. appeal (Crl) 222 of 2008
    arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3089 of 2006

    3) Appasaheb & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 763,

    4) Shivanand Mallappa Koti v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2007 SC 2314,

    5) Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 SC 3050,

    6) Hira Lal & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT), Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 2865.

    7) Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828.

    You might also like