Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 408 (1.89 seconds)
Documents citing Mahendra Pratap Singh vs Sarju Singh & Anr on 20 November, 1967

Jagdish Raj vs Diwan Chand And Others on 23 July, 2021

"40. This question has been considered in the celebrated judgment of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , where, after considering the judgments of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla [AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284] , Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas [AIR 1951 SC 316 : 1951 SCR 676] , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412] and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh [AIR 1968 SC 707 : (1968) 2 SCR 287] this Court came out with categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision: (Akalu Ahir case [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , SCC pp. 587-88, para 8) "(i) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the [appellant- ]accused;
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document

Yousuf vs State Of J&K And Another on 11 October, 2021

"40. This question has been considered in the celebrated judgment of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , where, after considering the judgments of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla [AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284] , Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas [AIR 1951 SC 316 : 1951 SCR 676] , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412] and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh [AIR 1968 SC 707 : (1968) 2 SCR 287] this Court came out with categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision: (Akalu Ahir case [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , SCC pp. 587-88, para 8) "(i) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the [appellant-]accused;
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document

Chandgi Ram vs Shri Ram Phal And Ors. on 9 February, 1973

(13) The Supreme Court again dealt with the same provision in Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh, and formed the view that where a retrial is ordered by the High Court the dice is loaded against the accused because insSpite of all caution, which the High Court may observe while reweighing the evidence the trial court would be unable to ignore the opinion expressed by the High Court that the appraisal of evidence resulting into acquittal had been erroneous.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chinta Mani vs Dharam Dutt And Anr on 30 November, 2016

"40. This question has been considered in the celebrated judgment of Akalu Ahir & Ors. v. Ramdeo Ram [(1973) 2 SCC 583], where, after considering the judgments of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla [1951 SCR 284], Logendranath Jha v. Polailal [1951 SCR 676], K.C. Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1963) 3 SCR 412] and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh [(1968) 2 SCR 287] this Court came out with categories of case which would justify the High Court in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision: (Akalu Ahir case, SCC pp. 587-88, para8) "(i) Where the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the appellant-
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Smt. Durga Devi @ Smt. Asha Rani vs Vinod Kumar And Ors. on 16 March, 2005

14. The question has been gone into in detail in the case of Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh and Anr. reported as wherein the impact of ordering re-trial has been examined. The Supreme Court advised caution because an order of re-trial is heavily loaded against the accused for such an order is pregnant with an advice to proceed towards conviction. Para 8 of the judgment can be quoted here to bring out the advice of the Supreme Court:
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 17 - M Goel - Full Document

Vellaiammal vs Thirumal Asari And Ors. on 27 February, 1986

Following and amplifying the above observations, it has been held in Mahendra Pratab Singh v. Sarju Singh , that although the list of grounds given in the said decision is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision, it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by the Supreme Court.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bindu Kumari vs State Of J&K And Others on 29 July, 2021

"40. This question has been considered in the celebrated judgment of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , where, after considering the judgments of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla [AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284] , Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas [AIR 1951 SC 316 : 1951 SCR 676] , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412] and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh [AIR 1968 SC 707 : (1968) 2 SCR 287] this Court came out with categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision: (Akalu Ahir case [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , SCC pp. 587-88, para 8) 9 CRR No.21/2018 "(i) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the [appellant- ]accused;
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document

Amrita Singh vs Sagar Singh And Others on 15 July, 2021

"40. This question has been considered in the celebrated judgment of Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , where, 9 after considering the judgments of D. Stephens v. Nosibolla [AIR 1951 SC 196 : 1951 SCR 284] , Logendranath Jha v. Polai Lal Biswas [AIR 1951 SC 316 : 1951 SCR 676] , K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. [AIR 1962 SC 1788 : (1963) 3 SCR 412] and Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh [AIR 1968 SC 707 : (1968) 2 SCR 287] this Court came out with categories of cases which would justify the High Court in interfering with the finding of acquittal in revision: (Akalu Ahir case [(1973) 2 SCC 583 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 903] , SCC pp. 587-88, para 8) "(i) where the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case, but has still acquitted the [appellant-]accused;
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - V C Koul - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next