Home » Penal Code 1860

Penal Code 1860

Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka

Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (Karnataka) – Ss 3 and 24 (1)(a) – Cognizance of and investigation into an offence – At the stage of granting prior approval under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2000 Act, the competent authority is not required to wade through the material placed by the Investigating Agency before him along with the proposal for grant of prior approval to ascertain the specific role of each accused.

Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd.

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 406, 418, 420, 427, 447, 506 & 120B r/w. 34 – In the order issuing summons, the Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company and the role played by them in their respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedings against them. 2021 Cri.LJ 4886 : JT 2021 (9) SC 504 : 2021 (11) SCALE 413

Union of India v. Md. Nawaz Khan

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 – Under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), the limitations on the grant of bail for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity are : (i) The Prosecutor must be given an opportunity to oppose the application for bail; and (ii) There must exist ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ that (a) the person is not guilty of such an offence; and (b) he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The standard prescribed for the grant of bail is ‘reasonable ground to believe’ that the person is not guilty of the offence.

Kanchan Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 306 – Abetment to suicide – Ingredients of – Merely because the deceased consumed poison in front of the house of the accused, that itself will not indicate any relation of the accused with the deceased. AIR 2021 SC 4313 : JT 2021 (9) SC 278

Sandeep v. State of Haryana

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 302 r/w. 34 – Arms Act, 1959 – S. 25 – The trajectory of the entry of the bullet as found in the Medical Report is also quite consistent with the version that the deceased was shot from a height i.e. the roof of the house. Considering the material on record including the eyewitness’s account as well as the corroborative pieces of material, it is firmly established that the accused P fired the fatal shot from the roof of the house. The involvement of accused-P is thus beyond any doubt. AIR 2021 SC 4105 : JT 2021 (9) SC 68 : 2021 (9) SCALE 724