Meena (Smt.) W/o. Balwant Hemke Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2000 (5) SCC 21

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Meena (Smt.) W/o....

The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that, mere recovery of the currency note and positive result of the phenolphthalein test not enough in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to establish guilt of the appellant on the basis of perfunctory nature of materials and prevaricating type of evidence. That the Charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

PRITHVI RAJ CHAUHAN Vs. UOI – (2020) 4 SCC 727

Section 18A - SC/ST Act, 1989 - Constitutional Validity - The Apex Court, observed that provisions of Section 438 Cr.PC shall not apply to the cases under Act. However, if the complaint does not make out a prima facie case for applicability of the provisions of the Act of 1989, Read more »

Trust Without Liability: The Supreme Court Clarifies Interplay Of Trusts And Cheque Dishonour Complaints Under The NI Act

Anup Koushik Karavadi and Kanishk Tiwari Introduction The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sankar Padam Thapa v. Vijaykumar Dineshchandra Agarwal (2025 INSC 1210) has conclusively addressed a long-standing ambiguity at the intersection of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the Indian Trusts Act, 1882. The Court was called upon to decide Read more »

Chittarmal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 2 SCC 266

The court discusses the distinction between section 34 and 149 of IPC. Common object does not necessarily require proof of a prior meeting of minds or pre-consort, whereas common intention suggests activity in concert and presupposes the existence of a prepared plan, implying a prior meeting of minds. However, both Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.