ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
Lalit Kishore Prasad Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
C. B. I. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 494 of 2002 wherein Lalit Kishore Prasad Srivastava is the appellant, Criminal Appeal No. 510 of 2002 wherein Rama Ballabh Chaudhary is the appellant and Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 2002 wherein Naresh Choubey is the appellant commonly originate against the judgment of conviction dated 16-8-2002 and sentence dated 19-8-2002 passed by the Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Animal Husbandry, Patna in Special Case No. 20 of 1996 (R. C. Case No. 30/A-96) convicting all the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c)(d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, Rama Ballabh Chaudhary for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Sections 465, 420, I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act, Lalit Kishore Prasad Srivastava for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 read with Section 465 I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act, Naresh Choubey for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471 read with Section 465 of the I.P.C. and Section 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act as well as directing each one of the appellants/
State in Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh and another
Narain Singh v. State of Punjab
Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and another
Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla
Bashnu Prasad Sinha and another v. State of Assam
Sukhvinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.