Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Profulla Kumar Sarkar And Ors. vs Emperor on 3 March, 1931

Middolla Harijana Thimmaiah @ ... vs State Of A.P. Rep. By S.H.O., Pargi P.S. on 28 April, 2004

21. After anxious consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the (earned Public Prosecutor, we are inclined to apply the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions mentioned above and concur with the view expressed by the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court (Profulla Kumar v. Emperor AIR 1931 Calcutta 401 (F.B.)) in this regard.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 21 - B S Reddy - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Saleem on 9 January, 1986

In Kiran Sarkar v. Emperor (6), it was held by the Patna High Court that the important matter for an order Section 247 Cr.PC, is the presence or absence of the complainant, that it is not necessary that the accused must be present or must have been summoned to the Court, and that the order under Section 247 is a final order of the acquittal which operates as bar under Section 403 of the Code of the trial of the accused for the same offence.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 49 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Lalu And Ors. vs The State on 17 September, 1958

The Investigating Officer had not been examined at that time and when he was subsequently examined, the prosecution did not put it to him whether the witness had made that statement. There is, therefore, some force in Mr. Mukherjee's contention that both before and after he was declared hostile, prosecution had not cared to lay a foundation for cross-examining its own witness. Be that as it may, the learned Judge does not appear to have given any caution to the jury as to how to evaluate the evidence given by a hostile witness. He should have given them proper directions in the light of several well known decisions of this Court including the Full Bench case of Profulla Kumar Sarkar v. Emperor . This non-direction, in our opinion, was a matter which cannot be overlooked. Then again, in regard to P. W. 14, Sudamalal, aged 10 years, the learned Judge did not tell the jury how to assess this evidence. Children, as is well known, are highly imaginative and given to imagining things and telling stories. Moreover they can be easily tutored and be asked to give from memory a story about which they have been told. In the circumstances the jurors cannot be said to have received proper assistance from the summing up by the learned Judge.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next