Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 318 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Sarabjit Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 12 May, 2009

Brij Mohan And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2011

29. Section 319 CrPC contemplates a situation where the evidence adduced by the prosecution not only implicates a person other than the named accused but is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the person to whom summons is issued. The law in this regard was explained in Ram Kishan Rohtagi case (1983) 1 SCC 1 and as pointed out by Mr Ghosh, consistently followed thereafter, except for the note of discord struck in Rajendra Singh case (2007) 7 SCC 378. It is only logical that there must be substantive evidence against a person in order to summon him for trial, although, he is not named in the charge-sheet or he has been discharged from the case, which would warrant his prosecution thereafter with a good chance of his conviction.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sagir vs State on 13 May, 2010

Mr. J. M. Panchal, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent has submitted that the application involves merely questions of fact and that, there is no error of law in the impugned decision of the trial Court. It is submitted that the order made by the trial Court is a discretionary order and as such, does not warrant interference. Inviting attention to the merits of the case, it is submitted that the proposed accused are Government servants. That even on the basis of the depositions of the eyewitnesses, it is apparent that the proposed accused have given protection to the victims. It is submitted that had it been the intention of the proposed accused to kill the persons belonging to a particular community, they could have even done so at the police station. However, on the contrary, they have provided vehicles to the victims for the purpose of transporting them to Rajasthan. It is submitted that while deciding an application under section 319 of the Code, the facts and circumstances of the case have to be taken into consideration. The trial Court has given clear and cogent reasons for rejecting the application made under section 319 of the Code and as such, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court in exercise of powers of revision. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh and another v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 Cr.L.J. 3978, wherein the Court has considered its earlier decisions right from 1983 and has held that an order under section 319 of the Code should not be passed only because the first informant or one of the witnesses seeks to implicate other persons. Sufficient and cogent reasons are required to be assigned by the Court so as to satisfy the ingredients of the provisions. Mere ipse dixit would not serve the purpose. Such an evidence must be convincing one at least for the purpose of exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction. For the aforementioned purpose, the Courts are required to apply stringent tests: one of the tests being whether the evidence on record is such which would reasonably lead to conviction of the person sought to be summoned. It is submitted that the Trial Court has upon appreciation of the evidence on record, not found it fit to array the proposed accused as accused in the said cases. It is urged that on the evidence which has come on record, namely, that the two Government Officers had provided protection to the victims, no error can be found in the impugned order of the Trial Court in not joining them as accused.
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Suman vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 2012

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sarabjit Singh's case (supra) also held that unless a higher standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof, viz. (i) an extra ordinary case and (ii) a case for sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, would not be satisfied.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharm Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 20 December, 2011

29. Section 319 CrPC contemplates a situation where the evidence adduced by the prosecution not only implicates a person other than the named accused but is sufficient for the purpose of convicting the person to whom summons is issued. The law in this regard was explained in Ram Kishan Rohtagi case (1983) 1 SCC 1 and as pointed out by Mr Ghosh, consistently followed thereafter, except for the note of discord struck in Rajendra Singh case (2007) 7 SCC 378. It is only logical that there must be substantive evidence against a person in order to summon him for trial, although, he is not named in the charge-sheet or he has been discharged from the case, which would warrant his prosecution thereafter with a good chance of his conviction.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 27 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Jagjit Singh Chahal vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 7 October, 2015

(4) CRM-M-43597-2013 (Sarabjit Singh vs. State of Punjab) (5) CRM-M-2915-2014 (Sarabjit Singh vs. State of Punjab) (60) SI Sarabjit Singh of Punjab Police (since dismissed) has filed these two petitions u/s 482 CrPC for quashing of FIR No.69 dated 16.04.2013 u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC and 21/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at PS Fatehgarh Sahib and to order independent probe into FIR No.45 dated 03.03.2013, registered u/s 420/467/468/471 IPC, 21/61/85 of NDPS Act and 25/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Fatehgarh Sahib. In the first petition, he has leveled allegation against Sikander Singh Malooka, presently Education Minister in the State of Punjab and has impleaded him as respondent No.2. In the second petition (CRM-M-43597-2013) though the allegations are reiterated but Sh. Malooka is not a party respondent. Since the facts of both the FIRs are overlapping, a brief reference is being made from the first petition (CRM-M-43597-2013).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 100 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Imran vs State Of U.P. on 22 January, 2013

"The impugned order dated 02.11.2002, passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been passed saying that on the basis of evidence on record there appears a prima facie case. In fact mere mentioning that prima facie a case is made out is not sufficient. There ought to have been strong suspicion, as has been observed in the case of Sarabjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2009 (3) JIC 522 (SC).
Allahabad High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - S K Saxena - Full Document

Vinayak Shripati Karad vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 February, 2026

19. On perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 2014 SC 1400, it is evident that the Constitution Bench, after considering and relying upon earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another , AIR 2007 SC 2786; Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq and Another, AIR 2007 SC 1899; and Sarabjit Singh and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Another, AIR 2009 SC 2792, has crystallised the legal position governing the exercise of powers under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The following paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments are relevant for the present controversy:
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next