Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.79 seconds)
Documents citing Mer Ramdas Bejanand Bhai vs Harshad Bhai Mala Bhai on 26 March, 1992

Babu Roy & Ors vs State Of W.B on 13 May, 2008

Mr. Basu then cited the judgment in the case of Bijoy Bhai vs. Nabneet Bhai reported in 2004 SCC (Criminal) 2032 wherein Their Lordships held "the delay in questioning these witnesses by the investigating officer is a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution. We do not think that the High Court erred in disbelieving these witnesses". It may be pointed out that Their Lordships were considering an appeal from an order of acquittal. From paragraph 5 of the judgment it would appear that the evidence of the P.Ws.4 to 7 failed to disclose any cogent reason as to why was the deceased pulled out of his house and was killed near a Babul tree when the accused were already armed. This mystery left by the prosecution probablised the case of the defence that the deceased who had an affair with a woman must have been killed by some other assaillants near the Babul tree. What had added further suspicion to the case of the prosecution was the evidence of the P.W.11 who gave a graphic picture of the assault by the accused in Court whereas in his examination under section 161 Cr.P.C. he had stated that he came to the scene of occurrence after the incident had already happened. Therefore it was a case of inherent weakness of the evidence adduced by the prosecution based on which the High Court had acquitted the accused and the Apex Court did not interfere. It is not correct to say that the order of acquittal was recorded merely because there was delay of two days in examining the witness as urged by Mr. Basu.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 51 - Cited by 2 - G C Gupta - Full Document

Balwinder Kaur vs Punjab State Through Its Secretary on 2 December, 2024

8. It further appears that before 14.11.1994, there used to be a time limit for filing the claim petitions but then the High Court of Gujarat had taken the view in Mer Ramdas Bejanand Bhai vs. Harshad Bhai Mala Bhai, 1992 (1) ACC 717, that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was applicable in the case of an application for compensation filed before a claims Tribunal. The fact that the appellant lost her young son; she was widow; she had no source of livelihood; and she belongs to a remote area of Punjab etc., are several amongst the factors which ex facia would constitute a sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay, if any, that would have occurred had the 3 appellant filed a claim petition prior to 1994. These are all arguable issues. All that we have observed is that the Courts ought to have looked into these facts and then determined whether the appellant made out a case for condonation of delay before 1994 and if she was able to explain the delay between 1992 to 1994, could her claim petition be dismissed for want of limitation when the Legislature removed the impediment of limitation for filing claim petition before the Tribunal w.e.f. 14.11.1994.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document
1