Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs J. Jayalalitha on 20 August, 1996
In this context, we invite the attention of the parties and the trial Court to have regard to the principles laid down in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab'.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 77 (0.43 seconds)Documents citing
Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 21 December, 1984
Viri Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 November, 1987
In respect of the case cited in 1980 Cr LJ NOC 62 it is difficult to appreciate as the facts of that case have not been reproduced in Nearest case to the present case is the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court reported in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1984 SC 404. The question in that case however, was different. The question raised as to whether it was permissible to club and consolidate the case of police challan and a case of complaint where the prosecution version in the police challan case and the complaint case are materially different, contrary and mutually exclusive. Their Lordships held that they cannot be clubbed.
Siva @Sakthivel vs M.Kumaravel on 30 August, 2018
24. The facts of the case also warrant that the two trials should be
conducted by the same Presiding Officer in order to avoid conflict of
decisions. As was observed in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) clubbing and
consolidating the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a
complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially
different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated
but should be tried together with the evidence in the two cases being
recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of
simultaneously.
Abdul Salam And Another vs Inspector Of Police R. 1 Mambalam Police ... on 4 May, 1993
In this context, we invite the attention of the parties and the trial Court to have regard to the principles laid down in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab."
Gireesh vs Rahim on 8 June, 2020
In such situation, without going into the merits of the
case, I think it is better to remand this matter to the lower court
for fresh trial in accordance with law, based on the principles laid
down by this Court and the Apex Court.
Kadiresan vs Kasim And Ors. on 10 July, 1986
14. The Court, while ordering that both the cases would be clubbed in respect of this that occurrence has practically merged them which it had no jurisdiction to do. Since it is clear from the language of S. 21, Cr.P.C. that both the cases exist side by side and continue to have their specific identities and the Court has no jurisdiction to merge them it is always better to avoid terms like 'clubbing' and to use the language of the Code itself, that is to say 'trying together'. Since the court below has committed a gross error which has affected the interest of justice in both the cases, the revision petition has to be allowed and the trial court while dealing with the matter should follow the guidelines indicated by the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1985 SCC (Cri) 93 : (1986 Cri LJ 831) already quoted.
Hasanbibi Khatoon And Ors vs The State Of Bihar on 17 March, 2023
15. He further submits that even the other case cited by
the informant in State of M.P. versus Mishrilal (dead) and
Others (supra) is of no help inasmuch as, the observation was to
take up both the cases one after another and keep order reserved
in first case, take up the second case and finally pass order one
after another and the same was also to be done/order was to be
pronounced by the same learned Judge.
Ashish Jain vs Shankar Lal on 12 March, 2020
"In Harjinder Singh's case (supra) the facts were
somewhat similar to the present case. In that case, a case
was fixed on the police report under Sections 302, 307,
342, 440, 149, 148 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code and
Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Another case was
instituted against the said accused along with some other
persons upon a private complaint. Both the cases were
committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. After
discussing the law and correct interpretation of Sections
210 and 223 of the Code, the Supreme Court held as
under:
Santokh Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 April, 2013
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed
of in same terms as in CWP No. 9977 of 1994 titled as Harjinder
Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 14.01.2013.
State Of Maharashtra vs Balasaheb @ Ramesh Laxman Deshmukh on 27 April, 2001
It was pointed out by him that the trial Court has decided to proceed with two cases in the manner laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in Harjinder's case.