Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing R.M Tewari, Advocate vs State (Nct Of Delhi) & Ors on 20 February, 1996

Dattu Panth vs The State Of A.P., Anti Corruption ... on 23 February, 2023

17. The learned I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases cum V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, observing that no reason was assigned in the Memo issued by the Government for withdrawal of the prosecution of the case against the accused officer and the learned Special Public Prosecutor also did not mention any reason for arriving at her satisfaction to seek consent of the court for withdrawal of the prosecution of the case against the accused officer and the court was not expected to give the consent in a mechanical fashion without application of its mind simply because request was made by the Special Public Prosecutor and the accused reported no objection being the beneficiary, by relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.M. Tewari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and others7, Sheo Nandan Paswan v. State of Bihar and 7 AIR 1996 SC 2047 Dr.GRR,J 11 Crl.R.C. No.2173 of 2013 others8, State of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra and others9, State of Punjab v. United India and others10, Balwanth Singh and others v. State of Bihar11 and of the unreported judgment of the High Court of A.P. in Kuntrapakam Muddukrishnaiah v. The Inspector of Police, ACB, Tiurpathi12, and also observing that the Special Public Prosecutor could have made some efforts to make an independent observation to satisfy herself of a genuine or satisfactory reason or cause to seek permission of the court for withdrawal from the prosecution of the case against the accused officer, but seemed to have acted as a tool in the hands of the Government and more particularly as an accommodating employee of the Government filed the petition mechanically without application of mind, dismissed the same.
Telangana High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - G R Rani - Full Document

Ramnaresh And Anr. vs Arjun And Ors. on 8 February, 2008

12. The applications made under Section 321, Cr. P. C. not having been decided on the basis indicated above, fresh applications made in all such cases pursuant to the recommendations of the Review Committee or the revised opinion of the Government have to be considered and decided by the Designated Courts in the manner indicated above." On perusal of this observation of the Apex Court, it appears that in that case, charges under TADA Act were to be tried, for which the initial invocation of the stringent provisions of TADA Act was subject to sanction of the government and, therefore, the revised opinion of the government, formed on the basis of the recommendation of the high-power committee, after scrutiny of each case was not to be lightly discarded. In those circumstances, the direction for filing fresh application in pursuance of the recommendations of the review committee or the revised opinion of the government was directed. The present case is not based on charges related to TADA Act. Hence, the contention of Shri Saxena does not deserve to be sustained.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - B M Gupta - Full Document

Mohd. Rizwan Mohd. Isaq @ Laddowala vs The State Of Maharashtra (At The ... on 24 October, 2005

27. We are fortified in our view by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the point in issue in R.M. Tewari's case (supra). In that case, the Committee under the TADA reviewed the prosecution under the TADA and Government of Delhi conveyed its approval to the Director of Prosecution, Delhi, for deletion of the charges under the TADA. The public prosecutor filed application in the designated court for withdrawal of charges under the TADA on the ground of recommendations of the High Power Page 1069 Committee. The designated court dismissed the application taking the view that administrative decisions cannot interfere with the working of the judicial system.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - R P Desai - Full Document

The Government Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Its ... on 4 February, 2004

In the event of the Review Committee coming to a conclusion that there is no prima facie case for proceeding against the accused under POTA in a case which may be pending trail in Court, suitable direction may be issued in the nature of "revised opinion" as per the law laid down in R.M. Tiwari's case (referred supra) and the State of Tamil Nadu was not able to show anything to interdict review by the Committee and it would be wrong to construe the show cause notice as a process that may amount to interference with the course of justice and the hierarchy of Courts would proceed with the matters brought before them unhindered by the course of administrative review." Then the Review Committee has indicated that the cases will be taken up on the basis of available material for further consideration after final hearing, which are scheduled on 4th, 5th and 6th February, 2004 at New Delhi. W.P. Nos. 1239 and 1240 of 2004 are filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings of the second respondent ending with the order dated 23.1.2004 and quash the same.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next