Devi Prasad And Ors. vs State on 10 September, 1964
15. A Division Bench case of this Court was cited State v. Tula Ram, AIR 1960 All 585, in which it was laid down (at p. 588):
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.55 seconds)Documents citing
State vs Tula Ram And Ors. on 9 March, 1960
The State vs Chand Meah And Ors. on 17 March, 1961
15. But my attention was drawn by the learned Government Advocate to the Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Tula Ram AIR l960 All. 585. In that decision also the decision of the Supreme Court AIR 1954 SC 20 was considered. But in spite of the clear and definite statement in the said decision that Article 134 does not provide for an appeal from a judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of conviction of an accused person and has ordered his acquittal, the Allahabad High Court proceeded to consider the question and dealt with Article 134(l)(c) and Section 417 Cr. P.C. in detail and they came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that because Article 134(l)(c) of the Constitution does not contain any provisions corresponding to Section 417 Cr. P.C. it does not empower the High Court to grant the necessary certificate from an appellate order of acquittal passed by the High Court, even where the case was considered a fit one for a certificate.
Channa @ Umed Ali And Others vs State Of U.P. on 6 March, 2024
In the case of State vs. Tula Ram and Others, AIR 1960 ALLD 585, this court has held that where the witness was 'Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable' the court must seek corroboration from some independent evidence or from circumstances. In the present case, there is no independent witness to corroborate the testimony of P.W.1. Although the injury suffered by the deceased corroborate the allegations made in the FIR and in the statement of P.W.1, but keeping in view the fact that the testimony of P.W.-1 is not reliable and he has admitted enmity with number of persons in the village, possibility of the incident being caused by someone else can not be ruled out. The lodging of FIR after two to three hours when the police station was 3 km away gives credence to the argument of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellants were implicated after due deliberations in this case on account of the earlier enmity with the deceased and the P.W.1. No recovery of any weapon was made from the pointing out of any of the accused-appellants.
State Of U.P. vs Jag Raj on 3 April, 1961
In the case of Minaketan, AIR 1953 Orissa 160 (SB), referred to above and in State v. Tula Ram, 1900 All LJ 361 : (AIR 1960 All 585). it was pointed out that the words used in. Article 134 are wide enough to cover a certificate being granted by a High Court in any case, including one of acquittal.
State Of U.P. vs Jag Raj on 3 April, 1961
In the case of Minaketan , referred to above and in State v. Tula Ram . it was pointed out that the words used in Article 134 are wide enough to cover a certificate being granted by a High Court in any case, including one of acquittal.
1