Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2008AIRSCW707; 2008(1)LH(SC)561; AIR2008SC1091; 105(2008)CLT593(SC); 2008CriLJ1062; [2008(3)JCR121(SC)]; JT2008(1)SC640; 2008(1)SCALE561; (2008)11SCC131
..... of the indian penal code, 1860 (in short the 'ipc'), section 25 of the indian telegraph act, (in short the telegraph act') and section 3 of prevention of damage to public properties act, 1984 (in short the 'public property act') and sections 3 and 4 of the religious institutions (prevention of misuse) act, 1988 (in short the 'religious institutions act'). learned trial judge convicted the present appellants who were accused nos. ..... 1 and 26 respectively for the offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 and section 324 read with section ..... passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.13. the fourth exception to section 300 ipc covers acts done in a sudden fight. the said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first ..... stand of learned counsel for the appellant is that exception iv to section 300 ipc would apply to the facts of the case.12. for bringing in operation of exception 4 to section 300 ipc, it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
..... quashing the f.i.r. of baikunthpur p.s. case no. 35 of 2003 dated 17.4.2003 registered under sections 420, 414 and 120b of the indian penal code as well as section 3 of the prevention of of damage to public property act,1984.3. petitioner no. 1 is the manager of m/s mamta filling station, baikunthpur and other petitioners are staff of m/ ..... the e.c. act has over riding effect on all other enactment which are inconsistent with as contrary ..... to the provisions of the e.g. act or any order framed thereunder.8. the district magistrate ..... the provisions of essential commodities act for contravention of its its orders. the officer-in-charge has acted without following any procedure under the law and in haste got registered a case under sections 420, 414 and 120b of the indian penal code and section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property act 1984. by virtue of section 6 of the essential commodities act the orders made under .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
Reported in : AIR2000Ker389
..... obviously, the officers of the state have the duty to protect and preserve public property. the performance of that duty also involves the recovery of compensation when a public or state asset is wantonly destroyed. so, in addition to initiating action under the penal law including the prevention of damage to public property act, 1984, the state can also sue the wrong doers and their instigators for recovery ..... gear also. 16. violence in any form should be dealt with firmly by initiating appropriate legal action. 17. in case of destruction of public property including transport buses, office buildings etc. prompt action should be taken to book the culprits under relevant sections of pdpp act and the investigations pursued to their logical conclusion without undue delay. 18. it should be ensured that ..... indicates that it has changed its constitution and it would not function in accordance with the provi-sions of section 29a(5) of the act or the party is declared unlawful by the central government under the provisions of the unlawful activities (prevention) act, 1967 or any like ground where no enquiry is called for on the part of the commission. the ..... police dt. 4-2-1999 and set out fully in the earlier part of this judgment, (iii) we issue a writ of mandamus to the election commission to entertain complaints, if made, of violation of section 29a(5) of the representation of the people act, 1951 by any of the registered political parties or associations, and after a fair hearing, to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kerala
..... p. bhavadasan, j.1. thirty three persons were prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 120b, 143, 147, 148, 324, 427, 506, 302 r/w 149 ipc and sections 109, 111 ipc and section 3(2)(e) of the prevention of damages to public property act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the pdpp act). accused nos. 8, 13, 15 and 20 to 24 were found not guilty of any of the offences and ..... were acquitted of the charges. accused nos. 17 and 19 were found guilty of the offences punishable under section 302 r/w 34 ..... by them, are inadequate. it has to be stated that there is some substance in the above complaint with reference to the offence punishable under section 3(2)(e) of the pdpp act. the menace of causing destruction to the public property has been on the increase in recent times and the miscreants are able to go scot-free for various reasons. in fact, it is ..... and so, it was not possible to say, who had caused obstruction to the ksrtc buses. moreover, when a group of persons cause damage to public properties, each one of that illegal group will be held liable for the acts of the other members in the group also.44. one cannot dispute that there was an unlawful assembly and that they had indulged in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 2001(3)MPHT252; 2001(3)MPLJ272
..... . 12/97.2. it appears that the forest range officer, maihar investigated the offences punishable under sections 33 and 63 of the indian forest act, 1927 (for short 'the forest act') and the offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the prevention of damage to public property act, 1984, (for short 'the act of 1984').3. the charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other accused persons was filed in the court of ..... additional chief judicial magistrate, maihar. the petitioner and the other accused persons were charged for violation of sections 33 and 63 ..... of the forest act and also for .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
..... , 148, 149, 302, 307, 332, 333, 436 and 427 of the indian penal code, 1860 (hereinafter called as "ipc") read with section 135 of the bombay police act, 1951 (for short "bp act") and sections 3, 7 of prevention of damages of public property act, 1984 (for short "1984 act") for an incident which occurred at village dhedhal, wherein mr. m.n. pandya, sub-inspector of police, bavla police station has stated that ..... air 2001 sc 196; and state of a.p. v. sarma rao & ors. air 2007 sc 137). thus, it is evident that in exceptional circumstances, the court in order to prevent the miscarriage of criminal justice, if considers necessary, it may direct for investigation de novo wherein the case presents exceptional circumstances.34. in the instant case, admittedly, the high court ..... between members of the bharwad and the koli patel communities over the plying of rickshaws in the area surrounding dhedhal village of distt. ahmedabad, gujarat. the bharwad community had been preventing the koli patels from running their rickshaws in the said area. on the next day, i.e. on 8.7.2008, case no. c.r.no.i- 154/2008, was ..... of the constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. there cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of section 173 crpc empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the magistrate....... however, the sweeping .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
..... criminal misc. application no.11985 of 2010 was withdrawn.2. the applicant accused is charged with having committed offence under sections 397, 395, 332, 427, 323, 504 & 506(2) of ipc and under section 3(1)(c) of prevention of damages to public property act, 1984 and sec. 135 of bombay police act for which fir being c.r.no. i-41/2010 has been registered with bhanwad police station ..... .3. learned counsel mr. kamal sojitra submitted that considering the nature of offence and the manner in which it is alleged to ..... has occurred. he, therefore, submitted that present application may be allowed.4. learned app mr. kartik pandya resisted the application and submitted that when the police personnel tried to prevent the gambling, the accused attacked.5. having heard the learned advocate mr. sojitra for the applicant and learned app mr. kartik pandya and having considered the nature of offence and ..... ) not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse his liberty.(b) not to try to tamper or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner.(c) not act in any manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution.(d) maintain law and order and should cooperate with the investigating officers.(e) mark his presence before concerned police station .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
..... bail in connection with offence registered with vagdod police station, vide c.r.no.i- 86 of 2010 for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 333, 332, 427 of ipc and sections 3 and 7 of the damages to public properties act.3. heard learned advocate mr gondalia for the applicant-accused and mr kodekar, learned app for the state. perused the fir and papers ..... 4000 people got engaged in rioting and stone pelting. it is also alleged that there was some damage caused to the public property. it also appears that police officials were also injured and one of them has received a grievous injury. therefore, there is a charge of section 326 ipc. however, considering the role ascribed to the applicant-accused and the nature of allegations ..... they shall,1. not take undue advantage of their liberty or abuse their liberty;2. not to try to tamper or pressurize the prosecution witnesses or complainant in any manner;3. not act in a manner injurious to the interest of the prosecution;4. maintain law and order and should cooperate the investigating officers;5. mark their presence before the concerned police .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Patna
..... counsel for the petitioner and also perused the relevant section of the prevention of damage of public property act, 1984. section 3(1) of the act runs as follows:3. mischief causing damage to public property. - (1) whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a ..... term which may extend to five years and with fine. 6. mischief has been defined in section 2 of the act ..... counsel that prosecution of the petitioner under the above provision of prevention of damage of public property act, 1984 is misuse of process of the court. no case is made out under section 3 of the said act of 1984, no mischief was committed nor any damage was done to any public property, it is further submitted that this petitioner was not responsible ..... .6.2005 passed by c.j.m., patna in kotwali p.s. case no. 436 of 2002 thereby cognizance under section 3 of prevention of damage of public property act, 1984 has been taken against this petitioner and others.2. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
..... accused has committed an offence punishable under section 3(2) of the prevention of damage to the public property act, 1984? 38. the next question which falls for consideration is : whether the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 3(2) of the prevention of damage to the public property act, 1984. under the said act, any person committing mischief of doing an act which results in causing damages to the public property, is liable to be punished under the ..... provisions of the said act. there is ample evidence ..... on record which shows that the public property viz barricades, pmt buses, electric poles, road dividers .....Tag this Judgment!