In these appeals, the appellant, original accused No. The factual score which led to the trial of the appellant along with two others is that three days prior to the date of occurrence, i. On the date of occurrence, when the deceased Shambhubhai, the brother of the complainant, was going to his field by cycle about 9.
Allowed someone else to take few papers from file and replaced with other papers, then bring back to office. Court held guilty for theft even though only take out of possession temporarily. Talha — no dishonesty if Df is beneficial owner as is his right. Court held liable for robbery. Vincent Lee — threaten to arrest a victim who was using drugs.
Threat to arrest made in carrying out legal duty. Intention Threat made must compel victim to deliver property to Df Property must be valuable security s30 — legal right created Must be induced dishonestly — must prove Df intend to cause wrongful loss to victim When ppt passed from victim to Df, must be induced by fear of injury to self Abdul Wahab Mohd Noor — Victim had informed the matter to Badan Pencegah Rasuah before hading over the RM to Df.
Court held in this case, passing of ppt not induced by fear, therefore no extortion. Limited to robbery using weapon, more serious, whipping can be imposed in addition to other punishment. Exp 1 — temporary also CMA.
Defence of return in future cannot apply. But if you want to prove mere entrustment only also can. Wong Kia Heng — Df who has possession must gv exp how goods come into his possession, if no rsnble exp, regard as stolen ppt.
Liable for cheating as dishonestly conceal info from companies. Here dad deceived into letting son operated in the eye by Df, the boy suffered damage. Mohd Jalani - The person who by deceiving another intentionally induces the person so deceived to do an act although the deceiver have not acted fraudulently or dishonestly OTHER: Hoo Chee Keong No.Mar 13, · registered a Criminal Case under Section B, Indian Penal Code and took up investigation and submitted a charge-sheet against the Appellant and his other relatives under Sections B and A, Indian Penal Code.
3. At the trial, besides other witnesses, the prosecution examined the father of the deceased. Custodial sentence of the respondent was limited to the period undergone by him in custody i.e. about 8 months.
Though the State had filed appeal against the two persons including respondent Virendra who had faced trial, the special leave petition so far as the other accused i.e. Ram Prasad was dismissed by order dated Criminal Appeal Nos.
/79, /79 and / There were four appellants in Criminal Appeal, No. /79 before the High Court namely Joginder Singh, Bhagwan Singh, Mukhtiar Singh and Uttam Chand.
Originally they were tried by the Sessions Judge, Amritsar for offences punishable under Sections , /34, , , / 34 & /34 IPC. Rajwant and Another vs. State of Kerala, (AIR SC ) is an apt illustration of this point.
In Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, (AIR SC ), Vivian Bose, J. speaking for the Court, explained the meaning and scope of clause (3). In Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab, (AIR SC ), Vivian Bose, J.
speaking for the Court, explained the meaning and scope of clause (3). It was observed that the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a cause under Section , ‘thirdly".
appellant S.S. Chheena and M.D. Singh were responsible for abetting the suicide of his son and sought for their trial under section IPC.
During the course of the trial, an application was moved by the Public Prosecutor for summoning of the appellant and M.D.