Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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

        <h1>Acquittal in Conspiracy and Dacoity Cases; Conviction for Attack on Wireless Station</h1> <h3>CHONAMPARA CHELLAPPAN Versus STATE OF KERALA</h3> The court acquitted the accused of conspiracies at Calicut and Tutorial College, as well as dacoities at the houses of P.W. 106 and P.W. 117, and the shop ... - Issues Involved:1. Conspiracy at Calicut2. Conspiracy at Tutorial College, Tellicherry3. Attack on Tellicherry Police Station4. Attack on Pulpally Wireless Station5. Dacoity in the house of P.W. 1066. Dacoity in the shop of P.W. 1167. Dacoity in the house of P.W. 117Detailed Analysis:Conspiracy at CalicutThe prosecution alleged that a conspiracy was hatched at the house of accused No. 1 at Calicut on 30-10-1968. However, the court found that the evidence provided by P.W. 21, who was declared hostile, did not satisfactorily prove the conspiracy. P.W. 21 admitted he overheard discussions from the ground floor and could not identify the participants. The court ruled out P.W. 21's evidence as speculative and insufficient to corroborate the accomplice witnesses' testimonies. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the conspiracy at Calicut.Conspiracy at Tutorial College, TellicherryThe prosecution claimed a conspiracy meeting was held at the Tutorial College owned by accused No. 2 on 17-11-1968. The court found P.W. 23's evidence unreliable as he allegedly overheard the meeting from beneath a staircase and could not see the participants. P.W. 23 also provided inconsistent statements. The court concluded that the prosecution did not provide cogent and reliable evidence to prove the conspiracy at Tellicherry.Attack on Tellicherry Police StationThe prosecution alleged that the accused raided the Tellicherry Police Station on 22-11-1968. The court found that the F.I.R. (Ex. P-93) did not name any accused and noted discrepancies in the testimonies of P.W. 63 and P.W. 64. The court ruled that the identification of the accused in court without a prior T.I. parade was valueless. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the participation of the accused in the attack on Tellicherry Police Station.Attack on Pulpally Wireless StationThe prosecution successfully proved the attack on Pulpally Wireless Station on 24-11-1968. The F.I.R. and testimonies of P.W. 92, P.W. 94, and the statement of Sub-Inspector Sankunny Menon (Ex. P-107) provided substantial evidence. The court found that accused Nos. 5, 7, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146, and 147 participated in the attack. The court altered their convictions to Section 149/455 IPC and sentenced them to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment.Dacoity in the house of P.W. 106The prosecution alleged a dacoity in the house of P.W. 106 on 24-11-1968. The court found that P.W. 106's identification of A.5 was unreliable as it was made under stress and was not corroborated by other witnesses. The court ruled that there was no legal evidence against A.5, and the accomplice evidence could not be used.Dacoity in the shop of P.W. 116The prosecution alleged a dacoity in the shop of P.W. 116. The court found that the F.I.R. (Ex. P-134) did not identify any accused by name or face. P.W. 116's in-court identification of the accused was deemed unreliable without a prior T.I. parade. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove this incident.Dacoity in the house of P.W. 117The prosecution alleged a dacoity in the house of P.W. 117. The court found that the F.I.R. (Ex. P-133) did not identify any accused. P.W. 117's in-court identification of A.16 was not mentioned in the F.I.R. and thus was unreliable. The court ruled that there was no evidence to prove the dacoity in P.W. 117's house.Conclusion:The prosecution failed to prove the conspiracies at Calicut and Tellicherry, as well as the dacoities in the houses of P.W. 106 and P.W. 117, and the shop of P.W. 116. However, the prosecution successfully proved the attack on Pulpally Wireless Station, resulting in the conviction of accused Nos. 5, 7, 16, 128, 135, 145, 146, and 147 under Section 149/455 IPC with a sentence of 7 years' rigorous imprisonment. All other appellants were acquitted of the charges against them.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found