Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.86 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Gujarat vs Ramasi Devasi Bhil Alias Chakala on 16 February, 1990

State (Cbi) vs Ranjeet Singh on 1 March, 2006

4. The decision of the Gujarat High Court in State of Gujarat v. Ramasi Devasi Bhil alias Chakala (supra) simply lays down the legal position which emerges out of an interpretation of Sections 306, 307 and 308 to the effect that once pardon is granted under the provisions of Section 306 or 307 by the Court, the pardon cannot be revoked by the court unless the procedure indicated in S. 308 of the Code is followed. As provided under Section 308 of the Code prosecutor appearing in the case should certify that the approver has willfully concealed material facts or has falsely deposed before the Court. Thereafter, as provided under Section 308 of the Code, the matter is required to be referred to the High Court and the High Court may order that the accused be prosecuted for offence of perjury and also for the offence for which he was pardoned. Mr.Manan does not dispute this legal position.
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - R C Jain - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan And Etc. vs Ram Niwas And Anr. on 9 January, 2006

In the case of Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar 1995 Supp (1) SCC 80 : 1994 Cri LJ 3271 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had emphasised the object behind Section 306, Cr. P.C. However, on this specific aspect of the issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not weighed in. The most critical analysis of Section 306, Cr. P.C. has been done by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Ramasi Devasi Bhil alias Bhalaka 1991 Cri LJ (Guj) 2801. But, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held a contrary point of view. It has held that, "Thus, the very basis of the section is that a person who applies for pardon under the provisions of Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be assumed to be directly or indirectly concerned in the offence. Similarly, he may be assumed to be privy to an offence. The assumption does not mean that he is party to the offence. Thus the person applying may not be actual culprit. If he is not an actual culprit there does not arise any question of exculpating one's own self.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - R S Chauhan - Full Document

State Through The Public Prosecutor vs Kiran S/O Mohan Kandolkar & Others on 11 January, 1999

4. Sections 306 and 308 Criminal Procedure Code, deal with the tender of pardon and trial of person not complying with conditions of pardon. Section 306(4) gives a mandate that every person accepting a tender of pardon made under sub-section (1) shall be examined as a witness in the Court of Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and in the subsequent trial, if any. Section 308 provides that upon Public Prosecutor certifying that in his opinion the approver has either wilfully concealed anything essential or by giving false evidence, not complied with the condition on which the tender of pardon was made, such person may be tried for offence in respect of which pardon was so tendered or for any other offence of which he appears to have been guilty in connection with the same matter, and also for the offence of giving false evidence. The proviso to section 308(1) Criminal Procedure Code lays down in clear terms that such persons shall not be tried jointly with any of the other accused. In the case under consideration the approver was never examined as a witness in the trial Court, namely, the Sessions Court and relying upon his statement recorded under section 306(4) Criminal Procedure Code, before the Committing Magistrate, the Public Prosecutor had submitted that the approver be tried alongwith the other accused. The law on the subject has been laid down by the Apex Court in State (Delhi Admn.)
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - R K Batta - Full Document
1