Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Santosh Kumari vs State Of J & K & Ors on 13 September, 2011

Uttam Das @ Jhana Das vs The State Of West Bengal on 16 August, 2016

With regard to defective charge, according to the provisions of Section 215 of the Cr.P.C. read with Section 464 of the Cr.P.C. the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with in absence of any misleading factor in the charge framed against an accused person. Reference may be made to the decision of Santosh Kumari vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, reported in 2011 (3) SCC (Cri) 657, and the relevant portion of the above decision is quoted below:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - D K Gupta - Full Document

Savita Devi vs State Of M.P. on 2 September, 2015

In view of the principle laid down by Supreme Court, it can be safely concluded that if particular of "Order" is not mentioned in the charge, the charge should not be mechanically set aside. The necessary directions may be issued to specify the 'order' in order to give a clear picture to the accused about the allegations mentioned against him. This is necessary to attract section 7 of the EC Act. It being a curable defect may be permitted to be corrected.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next