Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Mohd. Shafi vs Mohd. Rafiq & Anr on 9 April, 2007

Ajay Kumar vs State Of U.P. on 7 February, 2014

They have made specific allegation against the applicant causing the injuries to the injured persons along with co-accused person. Prima facie according to the deposition of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 the involvement of the applicant in commission of the alleged offence has been shown. The trial court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order even in passing the impugned order no procedural illegality has been committed. So far as the rejection of the first application moved by the first informant under section 319 Cr.P.C. after examination-in-chief of P.W. 1, the same was rejected by the trial court is concerned, it was rejected on technical ground because the examination chief of P.W. 1 was not recorded by that time and in view of the Supreme Court decision taken in case of Mohd. Shafiq Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and others J.T. 2007(5) SC 562, the order rejecting his application under section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 18.4.2007 was affirmed by this court in Criminal Revision No. 1197 of 2007 but it was observed that it shall be open to the prosecution to move application under section 319 Cr.P.C., after completion of cross examination of P.W. 1 or evidence is adduced. After completing the cross examination of P.W. 1 and recording the statement of P.W. 2 Harveer Singh, fresh application under section 319 Cr.P.C. was moved, moving of such application was not barred, it was permissible under the law. The trial court did not commit any error in entertaining such application under section 319 Cr.P.C and allowing the same vide impugned order dated 20.11.2008. The impugned order dated 20.11.2008 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 Bulandshahar in S.T. No. 310 of 2006 is not suffering from any illegality or irregularities, the same is being affirmed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Singh - Full Document

Ateeq vs State Of U.P. on 27 January, 2010

The Hon'ble Apex Court in a subsequent judgment in case of Mohd. Shafi (supra) has laid down the guide-lines as to when the trial court can invoke its power to summon a person as an accused under Section 319 of the Code who had not been charge-sheeted by the Investigating Officer. The Hon'ble Court has held that the trial court while invoking its power under Section 319 of the Code must arrive at the satisfaction that there exits a possibility that accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution. The relevant observation of Hon'ble Court finds place in para-12 of the judgment, which is being extracted herebelow:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - R M Chauhan - Full Document

Jinder Kaur @ Shinder Kaur And Another vs State Of Punjab on 7 September, 2012

[(1979) 1 SCC 345], this Court even opined that such a power can be exercised even without there being a committal order passed against a person. [see also Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh & Anr., 2006(2) RCR(Criminal) 707 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 71 : [(2006)10 SCC 192]; Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh & Anr., 2002(3) RCR(Criminal) 191 : [(2002)5 SCC 738]; Michael Machado & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., 2000(2) RCR(Criminal) 75 : [(2000)3 SCC 262]; Palanisamy Gounder & Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police, 2006(2) RCR(Criminal) 235 : 2006 (2) Apex Criminal 244 : [(2005)12 SCC 327]; Kailash Dwivedi v. State of M.P. & Anr. [(2005)11 SCC 182] and Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq & Anr., 2007(2) RCR (Criminal) 762 : 2007(2) RAJ 534 : [2007(5) SCALE 611].
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - P Singh - Full Document

Ram Prakash Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 October, 2014

11. Counsel for the revisionists has placed reliance upon 2007 (58) ACC 254 (Mohd. Shafi vs. Mohd. Rafiq and another) in which it has been held that : "before the court exercises, its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at the satisfaction that there exists a possibility that the accused so summoned is in all likelihood would be convicted".
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - R Pandya - Full Document

Nidra @ Indu Bala Nishad vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 28 August, 2019

In Mohd Shafi v. Mohd Rafiq, (2007) 14 SCC 544, it was held that the prerequisite for exercise of power under Section 319 CrPC is the satisfaction of the court to proceed against a person who is not an accused but against whom evidence occurs, for which the court can even wait till the cross-examination is over and that there would be no illegality in doing so. A similar view has been taken by a two Judge Bench in Harbhajan Singh, (2009) 13 SCC 608.
Allahabad High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar-Iv - Full Document

Amrendra Pal & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 14 February, 2020

In the case of Mohd. Shafi (Supra) Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that for the exercise of the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. is that, it must appear to the court that some other person also who is not facing the trial, may also have been involved in the offence. The pre-requisite for the exercise of this power is similar to the prima-facie view which the magistrate must come to in order to take cognizance of the offence. Therefore, no straight-jacket formula can and should be laid with respect to conditions precedent for arriving at such an opinion and, if the Magistrate/Court is convinced even on the basis of evidence appearing in Examination-in-Chief, it can exercise the power under section 319Cr.P.C. and can proceed against such other person(s). It is essential to note that the Section also uses the words ''such person could be tried' instead of should be tried. Hence, what is required is not to have a mini-trial at this stage by having examination and cross-examination and thereafter rendering a decision on the overt act of such person sought to be added. In fact, it is this mini-trial that would affect the right of the person sought to be arraigned as an accused rather than not having any cross-examination at all, for in light of sub-section 4 of Section 319 Cr.P.C., the person would be entitled to a fresh trial where he would have all the rights including the right to cross examine prosecution witnesses and examine defence witnesses and advance his arguments upon the same.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next