241	JIBRIAL DIWAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA	Coram: M.M. PUNCHHI, K. VENKATASWAMI	24/07/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 417, 465 and 471-Offences under-Essential ingredients of-Cultural show organised by a Minister-Invitations to Artists-Invitation letters prepared on the letter head of the Minister-Letters were alleged to be f	Appeal before Supreme Court-Held by the delivery of forged letters, there was neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to another- The act of the appellant could not thus be termed to have been done dishonestly-Likewise the appell	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
242	BILAL AHMED KALOO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH	Coram: A. S. ANAND, K. T. THOMAS	06/08/1997	Criminal Law : Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 124(A)-Sedition-Charge framed-No averments-Held-Totally bereft of the crucial allegation-Conviction unsustainable. Sections 153A, 505(2)-Offence under-Distinction between-Promoting enmity be		Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
243	MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR	Coram: G. N. RAY, G. B. PATTANAIK	06/08/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Section 376 read with Section 511-Attempt to commit rape-Order of acquittal-Interference by appellate court-When-Held, there is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which an orde	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded. The appellate court should consider every matter on record and the reasons	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
244	B. SUBBA RAO & ORS. Vs. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHAT HYDERABAD	Coram: M. K. MUKHERJEE, S. SAGHIR AHMAD	07/08/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148, 302/1491/Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 379-Trial Court acquitting accused persons of offences ill's 148 and 302/149 IPC-High Court appreciating evidence and reversing order of acquittal-Interference by	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. If the finding given by the trial court is found to be based on a reasonable view of the evidence, the impugned judgement has got to be set aside, for law is now well settled that if two reasonable concl	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
245	PRAHLAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH	Coram: G. N. RAY, G. B. PATTANAIK	13/08/1997	Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code-S. 376-Rape of a minor girl-Acquittal by Sessions Court-Reversed by High Court-Held, the High Court can not interfere on mere surmises and conjectures unless there is an acceptable evidence-Conviction set aside. T	Allowing the Appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court interfered with an order of acquittal on mere surmises and conjectures without having an iota of acceptable evidence bringing complicity of the accused and as such the said conviction and	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
246	ATMARAM ZINGARAJI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA	Coram: M.K. MUKHERJEE, D.P. WADHWA	13/08/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860 : S. 302 and 326-Nine persons including the appellant prosecuted for offences u/ss. 147, 148, 302/149 and 341/149-Trial Court Acquitted-High Court convicted the appellant u/s. 302 (simplicitor)	Held, evidence on record indicates that the deceased sustained injuries by other weapons also and his death was the outcome of all the injuries- Appellant would, therefore, be guilty of offence u/s. 326 as he caused a grievous injury to the deceas	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
247	AJIT SAVANT MAJAGAVI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA	Coram: M. K. MUKHERJEE, S. SAGHIR AHMAD	14/08/1997	Criminal Law-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Criminal Procedure Code 1973-Section 378-Appeal against acquittal-Appellant acquitted by trial court-Of charge of murdering wife-High Court reversing the acquittal on circumstantial evidence-Whether	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The High Court in reversing the judgment of the trial court had fully adhered to the principles laid down In this Court in various decisions and there is no infirmity in its judgment. [458-G] Sheo Sw	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
248	RAMKISHAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN	Coram: A. S. ANAND, K. RAMASWAMY	02/09/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Ss. 304 (PartII) /149 and 148-Ten accused including five appellants prosecuted u/s. 302/148-Prosecution case indicating 10-12 persons having attacked complainant party out of whom one died and others received injuries-	Held, on the basis of finding of trial court, the intention of appel-lants could only have been to cause injuries to deceased and they did not share any common intention to cause death of deceased-Medical evidence also does not support the ultimat	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
249	MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT	Coram: M.K. MUKHERJEE, S. SAGHIR AHMAD	03/09/1997	Prevention of Corporation Act, 1947-Ss. 5(2), 6-Sanction for prosecution- Independent application of mind by sanctioning authority based on material and evidence collected during investigation necessary-The section while prohibiting Courts from ta	Allowing the Appeal, this Court Held : 1. By issuing a direction to the Secretary to grant sanction, the High Court closed all other alternatives to the Secretary and compelled him to proceed only in one direction and to act only in one way, nam	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
250	STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAJENDRA JAWNMAL GANDHI	Coram: M.K. MUKHERJEE, D.P. WASHWA	11/09/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sec. 376/511/354-Bombay Children Act 1948-Sec. 57. Rape-Committed on a minor girl-Medical Examination- Examination of witness- Conviction by Trial Court-On appeal High Court upsetting the conviction under sec. 376 IPC and	Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The accused has committed the offence under sec. 376/511 Indian Penal Code, 1860. [87-H] The circumstances show that the accused intended to commit rape on the girl. In the commission of that crime, h	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
251	DUKHMOCHAN PANDEY & ORS., SHAMSUL MIAN & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR	Coram: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK	25/09/1997	Criminal law : Indian Penal Code, 1860 : Sections 302/34 and 325/34-Applicability of-Common intention- Stages at which, can be formed-Held, can be formed previously or on the spot during the progress of the crime-Common intention may develop	Partly allowing the appeals, this Court HELD: 1.1. The existence of a common intention between the participants in a crime is an essential element for attracting Section 34 IPC and such intention could be formed previously or on the spot during	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
252	RAMBILAS & ORS. Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH	Coram: M.M. PUNCHHI, S.P. KURDUKAR	03/10/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302-Accused prosecuted for murder of a notorious character-Prosecution case based on evidence of four eye witnesses-Occurrence allegedly in late evening-Festival being celebrated in village where villagers dance and	Allowing the Appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Supreme Court would ordinarily not to interfere with finding of fact, based on appreciation of evidence by courts below. However, in the instant case, since the courts below have mechanically read evide	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
253	SHRI ASHIM K.ROY Vs. BIPINBHAI VADILAL MEHTA & ORS.	Coram: A.S. ANAND, K. VENKATASWAMI	14/10/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 409 and 120-B-Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482-Inherent jurisdiction of High Court- Criminal case registered against the respondent and committed to the Sessions Court for proceeding further-Complaint p	Dismissing the appeals, the Court. HELD : 1. The accused respondents No. 1 and 2 could have come into picture only after the transactions complained of had taken place. It was the father of the first respondent, who was the Managing Director of	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
254	R. PANDIAN AND ANOTHERA. DEIVENDRAN SON OF M. AMMAVASITHEVA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADUTHROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOM	Coram: G.N. RAY, G.B. PATTANAIK	21/10/1997	Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 306, 307, 306(4) and 460 (g)-Pardon to Co-accused-Grant of-Matter committed to Sessions Judge- Pardon granted by Chief Judicial Magistrate after commitment of case- Power to grant pardon lies only with the co	Disposing of the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. Under Section 306 Cr. P.C. power has been conferred upon the Chief Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate as well as the Magistrate of the First Class to tender pardon to a person on con	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
255	HARICHARAN & ANR. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN	Coram: G.T. NANAVATI, V.N. KHARE	22/10/1997	Indian Penal Code, 1860 : S.302 r/w S.49-Armed men stop bus at gun point, shoot at the deceased and assault him with other weapons, and run away together after committing crime -Held, they were members of an unlawful assembly acting in prosecution	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The appellants were rightly convicted under S.302 IPC read with S.49. [681-D1 2. Both the courts below relied on the evidence of PW-1. He had in clear terms stated that the bus in which he was travel	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement