Punishment for contravention of licence or rule

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P.

   Supreme Court of India 11 Mar 2015 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, conviction is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person, and a complete chain of events is established linking the accused to the crime. Confessional statements made to police, while inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be used as source of information to discover facts under Section 27, and such discoveries based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events can support conviction when combined with other credible evidence. In evaluating concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless findings are vitiated by grave error of law or lead to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.

   On this section: Punishment for use of arms in offense - applied for using licensed and unlicensed weapons in commission of murder

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Rakesh Anand vs State of up

   Supreme Court of India 11 Mar 2015 Binding (SC) - Landmark for Appellate Principles Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, where a complete chain of circumstances is established linking the accused to the commission of the offence, such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is as reliable as direct eyewitness evidence. The doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits evidence of facts discovered as a consequence of information given by the accused, notwithstanding that the information itself may constitute a confession barred under Section 25. Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial courts and confirmed by high courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, error of procedure, misreading of evidence, or would result in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.

   On this section: Applied for unauthorized possession of firearms used in the criminal offence.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.