Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 58 (0.77 seconds)
Documents citing Balwant Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 4 October, 1977

Navnitdas Girdharlal Ramaya vs Kundalikrao Khanderao Shinde And Ors. on 22 February, 1979

In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, these grounds taken, either singularly or together, fail to inspire any confidence and are not in the least convincing. On the contrary, they pale into utter insignificance reflecting the inherent weakness of the application. Considered in the entire context, irresistible reaction is that these grounds are clear afterthoughts. It is indeed strange that the prosecutor should have suddenly moved for withdrawal from prosecution when all throughout the State itself was zealously proceeding ahead therewith. The State's own vehement contention all through was that serious offences were committed by the accused, that there was ample material in that behalf, that the accused were rightly charge-sheeted and prosecuted and that they must face trial accordingly. It is, therefore, all the more enigmatic, if not also shocking, that after grave charges were, in fact, actually framed and when the trial in that behalf was also about to effectively commence, the public prosecutor should have, all of a sudden, retraced his steps, effected a mysterious about turn and asked for withdrawal from prosecution. As observed by the Supreme Court in Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, supra:
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Balakrishna Reddy And Others vs Principal Secretary To Govt., Home ... on 11 February, 1999

The Supreme Court did not interfere with the order of the High Court but reiterated the law laid down in Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar, (supra). The Supreme Court went further to lay down that the Code is the master for the criminal process and no authority can coerce or order or pressurise a functionary like a Public Prosecutor to act in a particular manner. The Court held:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 24 - Cited by 3 - B Nazki - Full Document

Javed Masood And Anr. vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 March, 2008

26. The statutory responsibility for deciding upon withdrawal squarely vests on the Public Prosecutor and is entirely within the discretion of the Public Prosecutor. It is non-negotiable and cannot be bartered away in favour of those who may be above her/him on the administrative side. The Criminal Procedure Code is the only master of the Public Prosecutor and he has to guide herself/himself with reference to Criminal Procedure Code only. So guided, the consideration which must weigh with her/him is, whether the broader cause of public justice will be advanced or retarded by the withdrawal or continuance of the prosecution. The sole consideration for the Public Prosecutor when she/he decides a withdrawal from a prosecution is the larger factor of administration of justice, not political favours nor party pressures nor like concerns. Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar .
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 44 - Cited by 0 - G Singh - Full Document

Sudesh, Subhash And Sudheer All S/O Sri ... vs State Of U.P. on 7 February, 2007

The position was confirmed in Bansi Lal v. Chandan Lal and Balwant Singh v. State of Bihar . The law is thus well-settled and its application is all that calls for caution. In the special situation of this case, two principles must be hammered home. The decision to withdraw must be of the Public Prosecutor, not of other authorities, even of those whose displeasure may affect his continuance in office. The court is monitor, not servitor, and must check to see if the essentials of the law are not breached, without, of course, crippling or usurping the power of the Public Prosecutor. The two matters which are significant are (a) whether the considerations are germane, and (b) whether the actual decision was made or only obeyed by the Public Prosecutor.
Allahabad High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - V Prasad - Full Document

Apurba Ballav Goswami vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 5 September, 2006

While seeking withdrawal from prosecution under Section 321, the Public Prosecutor, let us remember, is not merely a mouthpiece of the Government; his master, as the Apex Court observed, in Balwant Singh (supra), is not the Government, which appoints him, but the Code of Criminal Procedure and he has to be guided by the provisions of Code and not what the Government desires.
Gauhati High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - I Ansari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next