Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 431 (1.04 seconds)
Documents citing S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors on 29 April, 2008

Ram Sudhar vs State Of U.P. And Others on 4 July, 2022

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.))"
Allahabad High Court Cites 59 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

State Of Up vs Rajendra S/O Chunni Lal And 03 Others on 6 July, 2022

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.)"
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Shyam Sunder Sharma vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 July, 2022

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.))"
Allahabad High Court Cites 66 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

State Of Gujarat vs Ahir Hamirbhai Mulubhai on 1 February, 2023

Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P (2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007) 13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5 SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 Page 25 of 47 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 21:22:44 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.A/625/1996 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/02/2023 undefined SCC 98 and Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)"
Gujarat High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 0 - V M Pancholi - Full Document

State Of U.P. vs Bachchan Khan on 7 July, 2022

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.))"
Allahabad High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 2 - V K Birla - Full Document

Kaju Singh vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 4 July, 2022

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.))"
Allahabad High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

State Of Up vs Rajendra S/O Chunni Lal And 03 Others on 6 July, 2022

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.)"
Allahabad High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

State Of Up vs Kuldeep S/O Mahendra And Another on 6 July, 2022

40. In exceptional cases where there are compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court can be held to be perverse if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material. A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is "against the weight of evidence", or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. (See Balak Ram v. State of U.P.9, Shailendra Pratap v. State of U.P.10, Budh Singh v. State of U.P.11, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy¹2, Arulvelu v. State 13, Ram Singh v. State of H.P.14 and Babu v. State of Kerala¹5.)"
Allahabad High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 0 - V K Birla - Full Document

Hitesh Rasiklal Shah vs Mahavir Ghevarchad Chopra & ... on 4 September, 2015

10. Therefore the submissions which have been made by learned Advocate Shri J.R.Dave referring to the judgment reported in case of S.Rama Krishna v. S.Rami Reddy (supra) that the Magistrate has the powers to acquit and the accused has the right for speedy trial is required to be considered in background of the facts of the case. Though he has emphasized this aspect about the earlier trial or the expeditious trial, the fact remains that the matter has to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities as referred to herein above. Therefore the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Viral Dave cannot be accepted and the present Appeal as submitted by the learned Advocate Shri Pandya deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The order dated 17.8.2001 dismissing the complaint / Criminal Case No. Page 8 of 9 HC-NIC Page 8 of 9 Created On Fri Sep 11 00:08:55 IST 2015 R/CR.A/1836/2005 JUDGMENT 4706 of 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order below application for restoration at Annexure-E and the order passed in Revision against that order at Annexure-F are set aside with the clarification that as per the statutory provisions, there is no provision for restoration or recalling of the order and those proceedings are of no consequence. Therefore the order at Annexure-A by which the complaint of the complainant being Criminal Case No. 4706 of 1996 has been dismissed by order dated 17.8.2001 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Criminal Case No. 4706 of 1996 is ordered to be restored to the file for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months. It goes without saying that both the sides will cooperate in proceeding with the aforesaid case and it will be open for the Presiding Officer to insist for hearing and / or impose the cost in case of failure to remain present.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - R H Shukla - Full Document

Jayeshbhai Bavanjibhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 9 October, 2024

10. Therefore the submissions which have been made by learned Advocate Shri J.R.Dave referring to the judgment reported in case of S.Rama Krishna v. S.Rami Reddy (supra) that the Magistrate has the powers to acquit and the accused has the right for speedy trial is required to be considered in background of the facts of the case Though he has emphasized this aspect about the earlier trial or the expeditious trial, the fact remains that the matter has to be decided on merits rather than on technicalities as referred to herein above. Therefore the submissions made by learned Advocate Shri Viral Dave cannot be accepted and the present Appeal as submitted by the learned Advocate Shri Pandya deserves to be allowed and accordingly stands allowed. The order dated 17.8.2001 dismissing the complaint / Criminal Case No. 4706 of 1996 is hereby quashed and set aside. The order below application for restoration at Annexure- E and the order passed in Revision against that order at Annexure-F are set aside with the clarification that as per the statutory provisions, there is no provision for restoration or recalling of the order and those proceedings are of no consequence. Therefore the order at Annexure-A by which the complaint of the complainant being Criminal Case No. 4706 of 1996 has been dismissed by order dated 17.8.2001 is hereby quashed and set aside and the Criminal Case No. 4706 of 1996 is ordered to be restored to the file for deciding the same on merits in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months. It goes without saying that both the sides will cooperate in proceeding with the aforesaid case and it will be open for the Presiding Officer to insist for hearing and / or impose the cost in case of failure to remain present.
Gujarat High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next