Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 71 (3.82 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar Etc. Etc vs P.P. Sharma, Ias And Anr on 2 April, 1991

Rbi Marketing (Netherlands) B.V & Anr ... vs State & Ors on 22 November, 2012

Dhanalakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar MANU/SC/0159/1989 : 1990CriLJ320, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma MANU/SC/0080/1996, Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill MANU/SC/0080/1996 : 1996CriLJ381, State of Kerala v. O.C. Kuttan MANU/SC/0119/1999 : 1999CriLJ1623, State of U.P. v. O.P. Sharma MANU/SC/0778/1996 : 1996CriLJ1878, Rashmi Kumar v. Mahesh Kumar Bhada MANU/SC/1052/1997 : (1997)2SCC397, Satvinder Kaur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 1996 SC 2983 and Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT of Delhi MANU/SC/0155/1999 : 1999CriLJ1833."
Delhi High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - A K Pathak - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 13 January, 2016

60. The Supreme Court in its decision in State of Bihar and Anr. vs. P.P. Sharma, IAS and Anr., reported as 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 has 99ummarized on the importance of the entire investigation record to be made available to the sanctioning authority and in the sanction order the relevant facts as to the constitution of the offence must be apparent on the face of it, the court held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 67 - Cited by 1 - S Mridul - Full Document

Maya Wati vs Central Bureau Of Investigation Acu (V) on 17 July, 1998

32. On the scope of interference in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the quashing of the proceedings at a stage interior to trial, the Apex Court in State of Bihar v. P.P.Sharma & another, 1992 Supp.(1) S.C.C. 222, held that the Code of Criminal Procedure gives to the police unfettered power to investigate all cases where they suspect commission of a cognisable offence. In a proper case an aggrieved person can always seek remedy by invoking powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. One of the grounds would be when the Court could be convinced that power of investigation has been exercised by a police office malafide. In that event mandamus can be issued restraining the investigator to exercise his legal powers but a Court should be quite loath to interfere at the stage of investigation unless extra-ordinary case of gross abuse of the power by those in charge of the investigation is made out. It was further held that Investigating Officer is the arm of law and plays pivotal role in dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. Police investigation is, therefore, the foundation stone on which whole edifice of criminal law rests. The duty of investigation officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts to extract truth from half truth or grabbled version connecting the chain of events. Investigation is a tedious process. Investigation Officer may have to obtain information from sources disclosed or undisclosed and there is no such procedure to conduct investigation to connect every step in the chain of prosecution case by collecting evidence except to the extent expressly prohibited by Criminal Procedure Code or Evidence Act or Constitution. The function of the judiciary in the course of investigation by the police should be complementary and full freedom should be accorded to the investigator to collect the evidence connecting the chain of events leading to discovery of truth. Investigation Officer would conduct in-depth investigation to discover truth. At this stage when investigation is in progress, High Court should not interfere, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction. Appreciation of evidence would be function of the criminal courts.
Delhi High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - N G Nandi - Full Document

Swami Dhirendra Brahamchari vs Shailendar Bhushan And Another on 4 February, 1994

I do feel that the petition deserves to be dismissed on the basis of the above noted observations of the Supreme Court alone. However, since elaborate arguments were addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and as, despite the clear dictum of the Supreme Court, they insisted upon making submissions on the basis of the First Information Report and the documents referred to above, which, of course, form part of report under S. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, let me, though not without reluctance, proceed to deal with the submission that no prima facie case of cheating is made out.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next