Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 227 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Pooja Pal vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 January, 2016

Vikram Vincent vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2022

"24. Be that as it may, the High Court eventually by the impugned judgment and order [Pooja Pal v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine All 6350] has dismissed the writ petition. It held the view that if the appellant was not satisfied with the charge-sheet submitted by the Civil Police as well as CB-CID and the materials collected by these two agencies in course of their separate and independent investigation, and is also of the view that further investigation was required, or that some additional evidence was to be collected, she was at liberty to file an application before the Magistrate concerned to that effect so as to enable the trial court to pass appropriate orders thereon. It further held that so far as the adduction of additional evidence was concerned, the appellant would have every opportunity to produce the same or ask there for also by making an appropriate application at the time of trial.
Karnataka High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Smt Tungamma vs Union Of India on 1 March, 2019

42. The counsel also referring the judgment of Pooja Pal vs. Union of India and others, reported in (2016) 3 Supreme Court Cases 135, contends that proactive role of Court in constitutional Courts alone empowered to direct fresh investigation/ reinvestigation and further investigation, while regular court empowered only to direct further investigation. The fact that charge sheet is already filed and trial is pending, relevance to whether fresh investigation/ reinvestigation or further investigation can be ordered and further bringing to the notice of the Court paragraph No.38 of the judgment the counsel contends that political vendetta against the private respondents being her rivals, in the case on hand there was a political vendetta and hence it is justifiable reason in law to direct an 61 investigation by CBI when the trial is under way and the contention that the trial is already commenced cannot be accepted and also brought to the notice of this Court paragraphs No.43 and 45 of the judgment and contends that in order to find out the truth it is necessary to order for CBI investigation and also brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.100 of the judgment and contends that, if the cause of complete justice and protection of human rights are the situational demands in such contingencies, order for further investigation or reinvestigation, even by an impartial agency as CBI ought to be a peremptory measure in the overwhelming cause of justice.
Karnataka High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next