Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.01 seconds)
Documents citing Kashinath Lal Sinha And Lal Babu Alias ... vs The State Of Bihar on 11 April, 1991

Tara Gulechha vs M/S.Idea Housing Corporation on 19 June, 2014

34.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Bihar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 318, referring to the case in Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain reported in 1973 SCC in Cri 828 in which it is held that 'This court has held that very incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify the feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of the private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution'.
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Sunil Vishnu Ombase on 27 January, 2015

The Division Bench of Patna High Court in paragraph-13 of the said judgment has observed that it is the duty of the prosecution and no less of the Court to see that the alleged weapon of the offence, if available, is shown to the medical witness and his opinion is invited as to whether all or any of the injuries on the victim could be caused with that weapon. The Patna High Court, however, has held that non production of bhala (in that case) before the medical witness for seeking his opinion is of no consequence if the nature of the injuries found on the person of the victim can well, in normal course, be attributed to the use of bhala (spear). In the present case also P.W.5 and P.W.6 who are the experts in the field, have categorically given their opinion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased and P.W.4 -
Bombay High Court Cites 73 - Cited by 0 - A S Gadkari - Full Document

Radha Devi vs Shafiq Alias Shafaq And Anr. on 24 February, 2003

In case when an order is passed without proper service of notice on opposite party quashing of order is possible, Chhabilal v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 Crimes 414 (Raj) or where Advocate had no notice for the case being posted for hearing Kashinath v. State of Bihar, (1989) 2 Crimes 421 (Pat) or where it is passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the party entitled to be heard, Deepak Thamardas Golwani v. State of Maharashtra, 1985 Cri LJ 23 (Bom). If the judgment is a nullity then also review is possible.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Mohan Prasad Srivastava vs The State Of Bihar And Ors. on 14 February, 2003

6. The case of Shivadhar Mishra was considered by a Single Bench of this Court in Birendra Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar, in C.W.J.C. No. 2293/99 and the case of Birendra Kumar Sinha was held to be distinguishable from that of Shivadhar Mishra on two grounds that there was no challenge regarding the transfer of the employees like that of the petitioner and that of Shivadhar Mishra to the Corporation long back in the year 1962 and that the question of termination was not there in case of the present petitioner. Birendra Kumar Sinha was denied al the retrial benefits as per Bihar Pension Rules as he was held to be an employee of the Corporation only. The case of Birendra Kumar Sinha was challenged before the L.P.A. Bench being L.P.A. No. 1639/2000.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P K Deb - Full Document
1