Search Results for "Gold Seizure"

343 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 343 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused in Dacoity and Murder Case — Evidence of Eyewitnesses and Recovery of Revolver Establishes Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt. Accused No.1 Convicted Under Sections 396, 449, 324, and 302 IPC for Firing Fatal Shots During Robbery.

The appellant, Sahadat Hussain Rahimat Hussain @ Kaloo Kanduri, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, for offences under Sec...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal of Convicts in Murder and Robbery Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Recovery of Stolen Articles and Last Seen Evidence Sufficient to Sustain Conviction Under Sections 302, 395, 397 IPC.

The appellants, Raju Murges Subramanyam and Nicholas @ Tambi Mhanu Babu, were convicted by the Sessions Court at Thane for offences punishable under S...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Considers Whether Notification 14/2010-ST is Clarificatory for Service Tax on Drilling Rigs in Continental Shelf. Appeal Admitted on Questions of Territorial Applicability of Service Tax to Offshore Drilling Services Under Finance Act, 1994.

The appellant, M/s. Greatship (India) Ltd., entered into contracts with ONGC in February and May 2009 to provide offshore drilling services using hire...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Murder and Robbery Case Due to Unreliable Identification and Lack of Corroboration. Conviction under Sections 302, 392, 394 read with 34 IPC set aside as sole testimony of child witness was not corroborated and identification parade was not conducted properly.

The case pertains to a criminal appeal against the conviction of the appellant-accused for offences under Sections 302, 392, 394 read with 34 of the I...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Petitions for Premature Release of Life Convicts in NDPS Act Cases — Held That Detention Beyond 14 Years Without Consideration of Remission Is Illegal. The court directed the state to consider premature release under the remission policy dated 10.02.2010 and Section 433A CrPC.

The petitioners, Bandu Shivaji More, Prashant Krushandev Jadhav, and Satyawan Mahadev Suryavanshi, were convicted for offences under the Narcotic Drug...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Hears Appeal Against Conviction in Dowry Death Case. Trial Court Convicted Husband Under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and Dowry Prohibition Act.

The case arises from a criminal appeal filed by Mahalingappa, Accused No.1, challenging his conviction and sentence by the Fast Track Court-I, Tumkur,...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Acquits Accused in Murder and Robbery Case Due to Lack of Circumstantial Evidence. Conviction Based on Last Seen Theory and Recovery of Stolen Articles Fails as Circumstantial Evidence Does Not Form Complete Chain Pointing to Guilt Under Sections 302 and 392 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The appellant, Radhe Zulidas Mandal, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2012 for offences under...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Hears Criminal Appeal Against Conviction Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for Murder of Wife. Trial Court Relied on Circumstantial Evidence Including Dog Squad Identification and Recovery of Ornaments, Despite Hostile Panch Witnesses and No Eye-Witnesses.

The appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, in Session...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Criminal Revision Petitions in Cheating Case — Conviction Under Section 420 IPC Upheld. Court finds concurrent findings of fact based on credible evidence and no grounds for interference under revisional jurisdiction.

The case involves three criminal revision petitions filed by the petitioners against their conviction under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the In...