Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Appellant's Sedition & Enmity Conviction Quashed; Arms Possession Conviction Upheld

        BILAL AHMED KALOO Versus STATE OF AP.

        BILAL AHMED KALOO Versus STATE OF AP. - 1997 AIR 3483, 1997 (3) Suppl. SCR 327, 1997 (7) SCC 431, 1997 (7) JT 272, 1997 (5) SCALE 399 Issues Involved:
        1. Conviction under Section 124-A IPC (Sedition)
        2. Conviction under Section 153-A IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups)
        3. Conviction under Section 505(2) IPC (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes)
        4. Conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act

        Issue-wise Analysis:

        1. Conviction under Section 124-A IPC (Sedition):
        The court examined whether the appellant's actions constituted sedition under Section 124-A IPC. The decisive ingredient for establishing sedition is the performance of acts that bring the Government established by law in India into hatred or contempt. The court found that there was no suggestion or evidence that the appellant acted against the Government of India or any State Government. The charge framed against the appellant lacked any allegation of actions against the Government. Citing the Constitution Bench in Kedar Nath Singh vs. State of Bihar, the court emphasized that sedition involves acts subverting the Government established by law, leading to public disorder through violence or incitement to violence. Therefore, the conviction under Section 124-A IPC could not be sustained due to the absence of crucial allegations against the Government.

        2. Conviction under Section 153-A IPC (Promoting enmity between different groups):
        The court evaluated the evidence for promoting enmity under Section 153-A IPC, which involves promoting disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, or regional groups. The prosecution's evidence, including oral testimony from witnesses, indicated that the appellant spread news of atrocities by Indian Army personnel against Kashmiri Muslims. However, the court noted that for Section 153-A to apply, there must be promotion of enmity between at least two different groups. The court concluded that the appellant's actions did not involve any reference to another community or group, thus failing to meet the criteria for Section 153-A.

        3. Conviction under Section 505(2) IPC (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes):
        The court also considered the applicability of Section 505(2) IPC, which penalizes statements or reports intended to create or promote enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups. Similar to Section 153-A, this section requires the involvement of at least two different groups. The court found that the appellant's actions did not reference any other community or group, and thus, the conviction under Section 505(2) IPC could not be upheld. Additionally, the court emphasized that mens rea, or intent, is a necessary ingredient for both Section 153-A and Section 505(2), which was not sufficiently demonstrated in this case.

        4. Conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act:
        The court reviewed the evidence related to the appellant's possession of arms and ammunition. The prosecution presented testimony from the Superintendent of Police and other officials who witnessed the appellant producing a revolver and cartridges. The forensic analysis confirmed that the weapons were in working condition. The court rejected the appellant's contention that the weapons were not sealed after seizure and could have been tampered with, noting that there was no allegation or suggestion of tampering. The identity of the weapon was established beyond reasonable doubt, and the court agreed with the trial court's finding that the appellant was in possession of arms and ammunition in violation of the law. The conviction and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act were upheld.

        Conclusion:
        The appeal was partly allowed. The convictions and sentences under Sections 124-A, 153-A, and 505(2) IPC were set aside. The conviction and sentence under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act were confirmed. The appellant was to be released from custody if he had already served the sentence under the Arms Act and was not wanted in any other case. The court criticized the trial court for its casual approach in convicting the appellant of serious offenses without sufficient evidence or proper charges, emphasizing the importance of careful consideration in cases involving serious charges to protect citizens' liberty.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found