Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Chacko Kuriakose vs State Of Kerala on 19 July, 2011

Pramodkumar Anand Mishra vs State Of Gujarat & on 24 December, 2014

21.The contention that the allegation under Section 212 IPC is a separate offence and it cannot be tried along with main Sessions Case is also not tenable.We are of the opinion that the incident is inseparately connected with the main case. Like criminal conspiracy, abetment, concealing the articles or body after the crime or harbouring the offender etc. all are interconnected and form part of the same transaction. We are not discussing about the merits of the case in this revision petition so that the case of the prosecution and defence of the petitioner are not affected by any of the observations Page 23 of 30 R/SCR.A/1879/2014 CAV JUDGMENT made in this order.We are also of the view that no injustice or prejudice is caused to the petitioner in trying along with the other accused. Unless prima facie injustice is caused, charge cannot be quashed in a revision petition. The accused was charge sheeted along with the others in the course of some transactions as mentioned under Section 223 Cr. P. C. since all are facing trial, petitioner can cross-examine the witnesses who have given evidence against him and no prejudice is caused. Since the petitioner was charge sheeted along with the main accused, there is no need for staying the trial in this case as was done in Kuriakose Chacko's case (1951 (52) Cri LJ 470) even for finding that an offence was committed.To punish an accused who is charged under Section 302 or 212 prosecution has to prove the alleged commission of offence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Pankaj Srivastava vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Central ... on 22 March, 2017

"17. Nowhere in section 212 it is stated that the person concealed should be convicted for an offence. Even if the main offender leaves unpunished by the court, the object of the provision under Section 212 requires that the person who has concealed or harboured the offender whom he believes and knows has committed the offences shall not leave unpunished if the other Ingredients are established. The criminality lies in act of concealment committed with the knowledge or belief that the person who is harboued or concealed is the offered and also with the criminal intention of screening him from legal punishment. Hence, we are unable to accept the dicta in Kuriakose Chacko v. State (supra) and similar line of decisions to the effect that the word 'offender' under section 212 means a convicted offender. It is true that if the accused who is alleged of committing the offence under section 212 if charged separately, on the facts of a particular case, it may be advisable to wait for the conclusion of trial of main accused as finding in the same may have a bearing on the question whether 'an offence at all has been committed', but, in such case, we are of the opinion that proper course advisable would be to commit the case to the Sessions Court where the main offence is being tried and club with the main case as was done in this case. It will give an opportunity to the accused also to prove that no offence has been committed as alleged. In such case, only after considering the question of commission of the offence part pleaded by the main offender etc. question of commission of offence under section 212 will be considered by the trial judge and no prejudice will be caused to the accused also."
Jharkhand High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document
1