Search Results for "Section 372 proviso"

86 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 86 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal Under Proviso to Section 372 CrPC — Condonation of Delay Granted. The court held that the victim's right to appeal is independent and delay can be condoned if sufficient cause is shown.

The petitioner, Parbhani District Central Bank Ltd., through its Assistant Manager Digambar s/o Madanrao Parve, filed a criminal writ petition challen...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

High Court of Karnataka Allows Appeal Against Injunction Restraining Bank from Enforcing Corporate Guarantee. The court set aside the injunction as the guarantee deed was unconditional and the bank had a prima facie case under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, enabling it to proceed under SARFAESI Act and IBC.

The appeal arose from an order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the LXXXV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court) in I.A. No....

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Appeal Under Section 378(4) CrPC in Section 138 NI Act Case - Appeal Against Acquittal in Private Complaint Lies Under Section 378(4) CrPC, Not Proviso to Section 372 CrPC

The case involved a reference to a larger bench to resolve a conflict regarding the maintainability of an appeal against acquittal in a prosecution un...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Quashes High Court's Revisional Order Convicting Accused in IPC Offences Due to Jurisdictional Error. High Court Cannot Convert Acquittal into Conviction Under Section 401 Cr.P.C.; Matter Remanded for Treatment as Appeal Under Section 372 Cr.P.C. After Victim's Right to Appeal Was Invoked.

The Supreme Court addressed appeals by accused persons against a High Court judgment that reversed their acquittal and convicted them while exercising...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Victim Compensation Appeals Under Section 357A CrPC — State Must Compensate Victims Even if Accused Acquitted or Untraced. The court held that victim compensation is a mandatory duty of the State, not dependent on conviction of the accused.

The judgment concerns four criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. 991, 992, 331, and 854 of 2011) heard together by the Bombay High Court. The appeals...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Dismisses Victim's Appeal for Enhancement of Sentence in Kidnapping and Murder Case. Victim Cannot Appeal Under Section 372 CrPC for Inadequate Sentence; Only State Government Can Seek Enhancement Under Section 377 CrPC.

The appellant, Parvinder Kansal, was the father of a deceased boy and the complainant in FIR No.742 of 2007 registered for offences under Section 364A...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal in Murder Case — Reverses Acquittal Under Section 302 IPC Based on Dying Declarations. Multiple Consistent Dying Declarations by Deceased Naming Accused as Perpetrator Held Sufficient for Conviction Despite Property Dispute Motive.

The case involves a criminal appeal filed by Amit Mishra, the son of the deceased Nirmalabai, against the acquittal of the accused Jagadambaprasad Mis...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal in Sohrabuddin Case for Lack of Maintainability. Appellant, examined as a prosecution witness, not considered a 'victim' under Section 372 Cr.P.C. as he was not the person who suffered loss or injury directly from the crime.

The case involves an appeal filed by Mahendrasinh Jorubha Zala, who was examined as a prosecution witness (PW-205) in a trial concerning the alleged c...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Allows Victim's Appeal Against Acquittal in Corruption Case. Holds that the amendment to Section 372 CrPC giving right to victim to appeal is procedural and retrospective.

The applicant, Babu Uligappa Batteli, was the original complainant who filed a complaint against respondent no.2 for offences under the Prevention of ...