Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 160 (3.24 seconds)
Documents citing Sheo Nandan Paswan vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 December, 1986

S.Jayapal vs I.Periyasamy on 13 October, 2009

20. Mr.R.Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent in Crl.R.C(MD)No.325 of 2008, primarily submits that in revision cases there was no right of audience and once the Court was seized of the matter, there would hardly be any room for any interloper to interfere with the Court proceedings. The learned senior counsel terms the reliance by the petitioner on the decision in Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others reported in 1987 Crl.L.J. 793 as totally misplaced and informs that the powers under Section 321 Cr.P.C. dealing with the withdrawal of the case and Section 239 Cr.P.C. dealing with discharge are totally different. An order under Section 239 Cr.P.C. is a reasoned order on merits and such cannot be interfered with at the instance of an interloper. The petitioner had absolutely no locus standi. He was neither the complainant or witness in the case and an order under Section 239 Cr.P.C. being as it was a judicial order, could not be challenged in the manner sought to be done.
Madras High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 3 - C T Selvam - Full Document

Shiv Nath Arora & Anr. vs State Of U.P. & Anr. on 25 September, 2013

4. It was argued from the side of the revisionists that while deciding the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal, the Magistrate is not required to pass a reasoned order in order to access the evidence to discover the case would end in conviction or acquittal. For this, learned counsel for the revisionists has relied upon the decision in the case of Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1987 SC 877. Learned counsel also argued that the duty of the trial court is to see that the grounds of withdrawal are legally valid, and the application made by the prosecutor is bona fide and is not collusive. In revision, for an order under Section 321 Cr.P.C. the duty of the High Court is to see that the considerations by the trial court on the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. was not misdirected, and the grounds of withdrawal are legally valid. It was also argued that the court is to see is that the Public Prosecutor was not actuated by extraneous, or misappropriate considerations while moving application for withdrawal from the prosecution. Even if it is possible to have another view, different from one, taken by the Public Prosecutor while moving application for withdrawal from prosecution, the High Court should be reluctant to interfere with the order unless it comes to the conclusion that the Public Prosecutor has not applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, and has simply acted at the behest of the government. or has been actuated by erroneous, or misappropriate considerations. If the view of the Public Prosecutor is one, which could, in the circumstances, be taken by any reasonable man. The court cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Public Prosecutor, by making a roving inquiry into the material on record. It was also argued that in the case the court below has made indepth inquiry and rejected the application, which is erroneous in the eyes of law. It was also submitted that there is paucity of evidence, which was not considered by the court below.
Allahabad High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Smt. Bijma Yadav on 19 July, 2019

In Sheo Nandan Paswan Vs. State of Bihar (supra), the Supreme Court noticed four factors to invoke power under Section 321 Code of Criminal Procedure, but none of those stands satisfied in this matter. The Public Prosecutor in his report of 2017 found the evidence cogent and sufficient enough to record conviction, but changed his version after having instructions from the executives of the State. The change doesn't bear confidence, hence, it cannot be said that the success of prosecution is absolutely blink. It is also to be kept in mind that the deceased and accused are having political background. Out of four accused three (including one who is no more now) were members of either Parliament or State Legislature. Mrs. Neelam Karwariya on whose application the process to file application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. has been initiated is a sitting Member of Uttar Pradesh State Legislative Assembly. In this background the political interference in withdrawal from prosecution cannot be denied. It would also be appropriate to state that so far as political vendetta in naming the accused persons in the case is concern, their names were disclosed in the FIR itself which was filed on the day of occurrence itself. With regard to inexpediency of the prosecution for reasons of the State and public policy, and in relation to adverse effects to the public interest, suffice to state that nothing is stated from this aspect in the application preferred by the Public Prosecutor and even before me this factor has not been addressed by learned Additional Advocate General. However, I have pondered facts of the case from this aspect also and my opinion has already been mentioned in early part of this paragraph itself. I failed to understand where and how the executive is searching extension of public interest in withdrawal from the prosecution in the instant matter.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - G Mathur - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next