Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Jia Lal: Bliagwana VS Delhi Administration: State Of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Superintendent And Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs, W. B. VS Anil Kumar Bhunja...
Checking relevance for Hardeep Singh VS Directorate Intelligence R. Amritsar...
Checking relevance for State VS Hussain Mirdha...
1958 0 Supreme(Gau) 93 : The Additional District Magistrate has the power to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 29 of the Arms Act, and such sanction is valid. This was confirmed by the court, which relied on Section 10(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code and the precedent in Panchu Gopal Ghosh v. The King, holding that sanction granted by an Additional District Magistrate is legally valid.Checking relevance for STATE VS KESHAB CHANDRA NASKAR...
1962 0 Supreme(Cal) 14 : Section 29 of the Indian Arms Act is not unconstitutional and invalid, and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of territorial discrimination. The sanction for prosecution under Section 29 is valid, as the provision is constitutionally sound and does not make any unconstitutional discrimination. The purpose of the section is to prevent frivolous or harassing prosecutions, and the three-month period of grace is a significant and legitimate feature of the provision. The State cannot challenge the validity of Section 29 on constitutional grounds, as it is bound to respect judicial decisions and amend statutes accordingly.Checking relevance for Mohan Lahiri VS King...
1950 0 Supreme(Pat) 7 : The court held that the word ''''proceedings'''' in Section 29 of the Arms Act means judicial proceedings in Court and not searches, arrests, or investigations made by the police. Therefore, the sanction under Section 29 is valid if obtained prior to the institution of judicial proceedings, and the absence of a timely sanction does not render the proceedings null and void. This establishes that a sanction under Section 29 is valid when obtained before judicial proceedings commence, even if not obtained during preliminary police investigations.Checking relevance for Muzaffar Shah VS Emperor...
1947 0 Supreme(Cal) 152 : The court held that the institution of proceedings referred to the earlier stage when proceedings are started by the police, and the delayed sanction did not invalidate the proceedings. It also emphasized that the absence of prior sanction did not affect the trial and the admissibility of evidence. Therefore, a sanction under Section 29 of the Arms Act, even if granted after the initiation of proceedings, is valid provided the proceedings were initiated in good faith and the sanction was obtained before trial concluded.Checking relevance for State (Anti Corruption Branch) Govt. Of N. C. T. Of Delhi VS R. C. Anand...
Checking relevance for Lupin Ltd. VS Johnson & Johnson...
Checking relevance for ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY...
1982 0 Supreme(Del) 189 : The sanction of the Chairman of a nationalised bank under Section 197 Cr. P.C. (which is analogous to Section 29 of the Arms Act in terms of requiring sanction for prosecution of public servants) is not valid because the Chairman is not a public servant within the meaning of Section 197 Cr. P.C. The court held that the Chairman and Directors of nationalised banks are not public servants as they are not employed in the affairs of the Union, despite the Central Government''''s control over share capital, profits, and appointments. The directors do not have a master-servant relationship with the bank and are considered the ''''very ego'''' of the institution, not servants of the state. Therefore, no sanction under Section 197 Cr. P.C. is required for their prosecution, making any such sanction invalid.
