Skip to content

Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: punjab municipal act 1911 Court: karnataka Year: 1961 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.018 seconds)

Feb 28 1961 (HC)

The State of Mysore Vs. Dyavegowda and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-28-1961

Reported in : AIR1962Kant124; AIR1962Mys124; ILR1961KAR586

..... in the 'murder' case is hit by rule of representations judicate. in this connection reliance is placed on the decision of the supreme court in pritam singh v. state of punjab, (s) : 1956crilj805 , wherein their lordships held that:'the effect of a verdict of acquittal pronounced by a competent court on a lawful charge and after a lawful trial is not ..... 'res j dicata' provision veritate acceptor is no less applicable to criminal than to civil proceedings. thus an acquittal of an accused in a trial under section 19(f), arms act, is tantamount to a finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the possession object certain revolver buy the accused as alleged. the possession of that revolver was a fact ..... -2 was one of the murderers of the deceased. from the proved circumstances, the only reasonable inference to that r-1 (dyavegowda) and r-2 (gowdaiah alias gowdappa alias ningappa) acted in concert. hence both of them are liable to be convicted under section 302 read with section 34 i. p. c.(21) in our opinion several of the conclusions arrived .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 08 1961 (HC)

In Re: Shamarao Bhairu

Court : Karnataka

Decided on : Feb-08-1961

Reported in : 1961CriLJ253

..... the actual injury caused. we do not think we need go deeper into-that controversy in view of the decision of the supreme court in virsa singh v. state of punjab : 1958crilj818 .that decision lays down that if it is proved that a particular injury was deliberately caused and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause ..... laid down in nisar ali's case (s) : 1957crilj550 , in our opinion, is wholly inapplicable. the statement in exhibit 10-a is not hit by section 24 of the evidence act nor can it be brought, as shown above, under section 154 cr. p.c. for the purpose of the present case.we see no good reason why it cannot be ..... a case is not substantive piece of evidence and can be only used to corroborate the statement of the maker under section 157 of the evidence act or to contradict it under section 145 of that act; it cannot be used as evidence against the maker at the trial if he him-self becomes an accused in order to corroborate or contradict .....

Tag this Judgment!

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //