SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Raj) 350

A.K.PUROHIT
Hunda @ Hindal – Appellant
Versus
State of Raj. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared
M.L. Khatri, Advocate, for Petitioner;
Ramjan Mohammad, Advocate, for State

iqjksfgr] lnL; & ;g fuxjkuh jktLFkku dkrdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1956 ¼la{ksi esa vf/kfu;e] 1956½ dh /kkjk 230 ds varxZr Hkw-izca/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh ckM+esj tSlyesj eq[;ky; tks/kiqj ds vknsk fnukad 9-4-1991 ds fo:) jktLo e.My U;k;ky; vtesj ¼eq- tks/kiqj½ ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ gSA

2- izdj.k ds la{ksi esa rF; bl izdkj gS fd jsLiksaMs.V@rglhynkj pkSgVu us orZeku izkFkhZ ds fo:) lgk;d dysDVj xqM+kekykuh ckM+esj ds le{k ,d fjiksVZ bl vkk; dh izLrqr dh fd fookfnr vkjkth [kljk ua- 238 jdck 75 ch?kk 9 fcLok esa orZeku izkFkhZ dk fgLlk 25 ch?kk 3 fcLok ekStk ehBs dk ryk rglhy pkSgVu ls izkFkhZ ds [kkrs dh fgLlsnkjh [kkftj dj mls cgd jkt ntZ fd;k tk; D;ksafd orZeku izkFkhZ us gh fcuk oS/k ikliksVZ ds ikfdLrku pyk x;kA izkFkhZ dk lgk;d dysDVj xqM+kekykuh us uksfVl tkjh fd;k tks vne rkehy ykSVkA fQj ?kks"k.kk i= tkjh dj mldh rkehy pLikanxh ls djkbZ xbZ vkSj dksbZ mtznkjh isk ugha djus ij lgk;d dysDVj xqM+kekykuh us vius vknsk fnukad 9-4-1991 }kjk izkFkhZ ds fookfnr Hkwfe esa mlds fgLls dh [kkrsnkjh [kkfjt dj cgd jkt bUnzkt djus ds vknsk tkjh dj fn;kA izkFkhZ us bl vknsk fnukad 9-4-1991 ls vlarq"V gksrs gq, vihy Hkw izca/k vf/kdkjh ,oa insu jktLo vihy vf/kdkjh ckM+esj-tSlyesj ¼eq[;ky;



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top