Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Bihar vs Ramdaras Ahir And Ors. on 6 August, 1984

Madheshwardhari Singh And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 11 July, 1986

"Since the.issue in Ramdaras Ahir's case had arisen only in the context of a capital charge and the reversal of an acquittal thereon, the examination and the adjudication of the question was confined to a case of that nature. From that it does not follow that some part of its rationale or the ratio itself would not be equally attracted in cases other than those on a capital charge or ones not directly involving the reversal of an acquittal. However, these are issues which can only be justifiably examined when they properly arise in a case and cannot be pronounced upon in an academic vacuum."
Patna High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

The State vs Maksudan Singh And Ors. on 13 August, 1985

Since the issue in Ramdaras Ahir's case had arisen only in the context of a capital charge and the reversal of an acquittal thereon, the examination and the adjudication of the question was confined to a case of that nature. From that it does not follow that - some part of its rationale or the ratio itself would not be equally attracted in cases other than those on a capital charge or ones not directly involving the reversal of an acquittal. However, these are issues which can only be justifiably examined when they properly arise in a case and cannot be pronounced upon in an academic vacuum.
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Madheshwardhari Singh And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 11 July, 1986

Since the issue'in Ramdaras Ahir's case had arisen only in the context of a capital charge and the reversal of an acquittal thereon, the examination and the adjudication of the question was confined to a case of that nature. From that it does not follow that some part of its rationale or the ratio itself would not be equally attracted in cases other than those on a capital charge or ones not directly involving the reversal of an acquittal. However, these are issues which can only be justifiably examined when they properly arise in a case and cannot be pronounced upon in an academic vacuum.
Patna High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Narinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana on 25 February, 2008

Now obviously procedure prescribed by law for depriving a person of his liberty cannot be 'reasonable, fair and just' unless that procedure ensures a speedy trial for determination of the guilt of such person. No procedure which does not ensure a reasonably quick trial can be regarded as 'reasonable, fair or just' and it would fall foul of Article 21. There can, therefore, be no doubt that speedy trial and by speedy trial, is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21.' The same question was considered by a Bench of the Patna High Court in State of Bihar v. Ramdaras Ahir and Ors. 1985 Crl. L.J. 584. It was concluded that the word 'trial' would bring within its sweep, the appeal that would be pending against such an order. In paragraph 17 the Court had held: 'Therefore, there seems to be no option, but to hold that the word 'trial' in the context of the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial includes within its sweep a substantive appeal provided by the Code to the High Court - whether against conviction or against acquittal. Thus, it would follow that the constitutional right of speedy trial envisaged an equally expeditious conclusion of a substantive appeal and not merely a technical completion of the proceedings in the original Court alone.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Arun Savalaram Pagare on 10 August, 1988

19. The learned Counsel for the respondent-accused also relies on the decision in State of Bihar v. Ramdaras Ahir, 1985 Cri LJ 584. It is a decision of a Division Bench of the Patna High Court to which the learned Chief Justice S. S. Sandhawalia was a party. In that case there was a clean acquittal of the accused on a capital charge, and the appeal preferred by the State against that acquittal pended for about ten years. On the facts of that case the Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that a callous and inordinately prolonged delay of ten years or more which, in no way arises from the accused's default (or is otherwise not occasioned due to any extraordinary and exceptional reasons), in the context of the reversal of a clean acquittal on a capital charge, would plainly violate the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The Division Bench further held that any procedure or practice which allows such horrendous delays cannot but be labelled as oppressive, arbitrary and fanciful. Their Lordships of the Patna High Court at pages 598 and 599 of the report observed thus :-
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next