Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (3.53 seconds)
Documents citing Sasi Thomas vs State & Ors on 24 November, 2006

Royden Harold Buthello vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 January, 2022

14) Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that this court vide order dated 23.06.2021 has issued notice to Talcher Police Station, respondent No. 6 also also humdust notice but they do not file their response to it. Even on his online complaint, no action has been taken. This shows the malafide on part of the police authorities. The petitioners have raised grounds for quashing of the FIR and subsequent trial for non compliance of various provisions of NDPS Act and also cited judgments to substantiate their stand with regard to non-compliance of the provisions of NDPS Act in case of Sasi Thomas versus State & Others 2, Nirmal Singh Kehlon versus State of Punjab 3 State of West Bengal & Others versus Committee for Protection, Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Others 4, Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali 5, K.V. Rajendra versus Superintendent of 2 (2006) 12 SCC 421 3 (2009) 1 SCC 441 4 (2010) 3 SCC 571 5 (2013) 5 SCC 762 11 Police 6, Bharti Tamang versus Union of India 7, Mithilesh Kumar Singh versus State of Rajasthan & Others 8, Pooja Pal versus Union of India 9, E. Sivakumar versus Union of India & Others 10, Dr. Naresh Kumar Mangla versus Anita Agarwal & Others 11 , Jamuna Chaudhary & Others versus State of Bihar 12, Sasi Thomas versus State & Others 13, Nirmal Singh Kehlon versus State of Punjab 14, Babubhai versus State of Gujarat & Others 15, Vinay Tyagi versus Irshad Ali 16 and Manohar Lal Sharma versus Principal Secretary & Others 17.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 1 - N K Vyas - Full Document

Anil Kumar vs State Of Kerala on 29 July, 2024

17. On going by these decisions, it appears that the determination order issued by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 is not a well considered order, which does not consider the aspects already held by this Court in the 11 W.P.(C) No.28757 of 2016 reported decisions as mentioned above. Under such circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and direct the 4th respondent to reconsider the issue in the light of the decision in Welfare Fund Inspector v. Jaya and Sasi V. and others v. State of Kerala and Others cited supra.
Kerala High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya vs The State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2019

29. While the trial court does not have inherent powers like those of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC or the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, such that it may order for complete reinvestigation or fresh investigation of a case before it, however, it has substantial powers in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Sections 311 and 391 CrPC. In cases where cognizance has been taken and where a substantial portion of investigation/trial has already been completed and where a direction for further examination would have the effect of delaying the trial, if the trial court is of the opinion that the case has been made out for alteration of charge, etc. it may exercise such powers without directing further investigation. (Ref. Sasi Thomas v. State [(2006) 12 SCC 421 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 72] .)
Supreme Court of India Cites 84 - Cited by 274 - R F Nariman - Full Document

Krishna & Anr vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 6 January, 2020

201. Historically but consistently the view of this Court has been that an investigation must be fair and effective, must proceed in proper direction in consonance with the ingredients of the offence and not in haphazard manner. In some cases besides investigation being effective the accused may have to prove miscarriage of justice but once it is shown the accused would be entitled to definite benefit in accordance with law. The investigation should be conducted in a manner so as to draw a just balance between citizen's right under Articles 19 and 21 and expansive power of the police to make investigation. These well-established principles have been stated by this Court in Sasi CRL.A. 778/2019 & other connected matters Page 50 of 67 Thomas v. State [(2006) 12 SCC 421 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 72] , State (Inspector of Police) v. Surya Sankaram Karri [(2006) 7 SCC 172 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] .
Delhi High Court Cites 68 - Cited by 1 - S D Sehgal - Full Document

Afr Bibhuranjan Dalai And Others vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... Opp. ... on 16 November, 2020

In Sasi Thomas v. State, (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 72, the apex Court held that proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of the rule of law. A proper and effective investigation into a serious offence and particularly in a case where there is no direct evidence assumes great significance as collection of adequate materials to prove the circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Unfortunately, the applicant has not been treated fairly. When a death has occurred in suspicious circumstances and in particular when an attempt had been made to bury the dead body hurriedly and upon obtaining apparently an incorrect medical certificate, it was expected that upon exhumation of the 33 body, the investigating authorities of the State shall carry out their statutory duties fairly.
Orissa High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M Rafiq - Full Document

Anil Kr. Sharma @ Pandit vs State on 31 January, 2020

201. Historically but consistently the view of this Court has been that an investigation must be fair and effective, must proceed in proper direction in consonance with the ingredients of the offence and not in haphazard manner. In some cases besides investigation being effective the accused may have to prove miscarriage of justice but once it is shown the accused would be entitled to definite benefit in accordance with law. The investigation should be conducted in a manner so as to draw a just balance between citizen's right under Articles 19 and 21 and expansive power of the police to make investigation. These well-established principles have been stated by this Court in Sasi Thomas v. State [(2006) 12 SCC 421 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 72] , State (Inspector of Police) v. Surya Sankaram Karri [(2006) 7 SCC 172 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 225] and T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [(2001) 6 SCC 181 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 1048] . 202.
Delhi High Court Cites 43 - Cited by 2 - S D Sehgal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next