 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
 |
 |
|
||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Report No. 58 Earlier decisions 3.32. Some of the earlier decisions which take the same view are given in the footnote.1 1. (a) Narsingh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (1955) 1 SCR 238-Article 134(1)(c). (b) Baladin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 181-Article 134(1)(c). (c) Banarasi Prasad v. Keshi Krishan, 28 IA 11 (13, 18) (PC). (d) Vaithianath Pillai v. King Emperor, 40 IA 193: LR 36 Mad 501: 14 Cr LJ 577 (PC). (e) Haripada Dev v. State of West Bengal, 1956 SCR 639-Article 134(1)(c) and Article 136. (f) Sidheshwar Ganguly v. State of West Bengal, 196) SCR 749 (754)-Articles 134 and 136. (g) Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay, AIR 1968 SC 22-Articles 134 and 136.    |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
|||||||||||
 |
|
 |
|
|||||||||
Back