Kalamudeen And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 17 May, 2005
v. State of Bihar (supra) and, therefore, order impugned is not sustainable and deserves to be set aside.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 186 (1.96 seconds)Documents citing
Raj Kishore Prasad vs State Of Bihar on 1 May, 1996
Mama @ Bidyut Prava Khuntia vs State Of Orissa .... Opposite Party on 14 September, 2022
10. As far as the referral order in the present cases is concerned, the
offences are those exclusively triable by that of the court of sessions.
To recapitulate, in Dharam Pal (supra) a Bench of five Judges of the
Supreme Court has overruled the view in Rajkishore Prasad (supra)
and Ranjit Singh (supra) and Kishori Singh (supra) and affirmed
the view in M/s. SWIL Limited (supra) and Kishun Singh (supra).
Consequently, the order under challenge in CRLMC No.2817 of
2003 is hereby affirmed and the interim order is vacated. The
CRLMC No.2817 of 2003 is accordingly dismissed.
Natthi Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 22 September, 2006
In the ultimate analysis, while placing reliance on the ratio propounded in Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar 1996 Cri LJ 2523 (supra), I hold that the learned Committing Magistrate, at the time of invoking Section 209 Cr.PC, had no jurisdiction to take cognizance against the co-accused who was not before him. Under Section 209, order could only be passed against those accused who either appeared or brought before the Committing Magistrate.
Munna Singh And Anr. vs State Of Bihar on 3 April, 2002
In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad (1996 Cri LJ 2523) (supra), one thing is clear that power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the trial Court only after the evidence is recorded but what would happen if the Court while exercising its power under Section 319 of the Code, not only refers to the evidence collected during the course of trial but also considers material collected during the course of investigation. In this case, I am faced with this situation. The expression 'evidence' has been defined under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, which reads as follows:--
Bhola Rai And Anr. vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 25 April, 1997
6. From bare reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is manifest that the duty of the Magistrate is limited one. Under Section 207 of the Code, the Magistrate is required to furnish to the accused free of cost copies of certain documents in a case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report. In cases instituted otherwise than on a police report if it appears that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of sessions then the Magistrate shall furnish to the accused all necessary documents mentioned Under Section 208 of the Code. The function of the Magistrate Under Section 209 of the Code is also limited to the extent that if it appears to the Magistrate that the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of session then the Magistrate, after complying with the provisions of Sections 207 and 208 of the Code, commit the case to the Court of session. In other words, the Magistrate is not empowered at the stage of Section 209 CrPC to apply his mind on merit of the matter as to who are the persons liable to face trial before the Court of session. Since an enquiry by the Committing Magistrate is not contemplated by the scheme of the present Code the procedure provided in Section 209 radically different from the commitment proceeding provided in Chapter 18 of the repealed Code. The Apex Court, while considering the scope of Sections 209 and 319 CrPC after taking notice of the 41st. Report of the Law Commission in the case of Raj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1996 Cri LR 2523 : (AIR 1996 SC 1931) held as under at page 2526; of Cri LJ:-
Cbi vs Lallan Ohja Etc. on 29 May, 2012
(v) In view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
matter of Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and in Raj Kishore
Prasad Vs. State of Bihar & Others (supra), it is clear that there is no other
stage in a trial after taking cognizance of offences and summoning of named
accused when another person can be summoned as an accused except as
provided under Section 319 Cr. P. C after recording of some evidence. The
said stage has not arrived. Mere recording of statement U/s 164 Cr. P. C
before a Ld. Magistrate at the request of IO cannot be construed as recording
of evidence in the present case.
B S R And Associates Llp And Anr vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020
153--- In rejoinder to arguments of Advocate Venegaonkar,
learned counsel Mr. Ponda reiterated that no complaint can be
filed without final report and invited attention to the rulings
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:42 :::
HVN 93
earlier cited by him. He also distinguished the rulings cited by
Advocate Venegaonkar and points out that here even as per
respondents, the trial court has still not taken cognizance. He
submits that (1983) 2 SCC 372 : State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Lakshmi Brahman and another cited by Advocate
Venegaonkar is not approved in (1996) 4 SCC 495 : Raj
Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and anr. (paragraph 9).
Udayan Sen vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020
153--- In rejoinder to arguments of Advocate Venegaonkar,
learned counsel Mr. Ponda reiterated that no complaint can be
filed without final report and invited attention to the rulings
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:05:11 :::
HVN 93
earlier cited by him. He also distinguished the rulings cited by
Advocate Venegaonkar and points out that here even as per
respondents, the trial court has still not taken cognizance. He
submits that (1983) 2 SCC 372 : State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Lakshmi Brahman and another cited by Advocate
Venegaonkar is not approved in (1996) 4 SCC 495 : Raj
Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and anr. (paragraph 9).
Deloitte Haskins And Sells Llp vs Union Of India And Ors on 21 April, 2020
153--- In rejoinder to arguments of Advocate Venegaonkar,
learned counsel Mr. Ponda reiterated that no complaint can be
filed without final report and invited attention to the rulings
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:52 :::
HVN 93
earlier cited by him. He also distinguished the rulings cited by
Advocate Venegaonkar and points out that here even as per
respondents, the trial court has still not taken cognizance. He
submits that (1983) 2 SCC 372 : State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Lakshmi Brahman and another cited by Advocate
Venegaonkar is not approved in (1996) 4 SCC 495 : Raj
Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and anr. (paragraph 9).
N Sampath Ganesh vs Union Of India And Anr on 21 April, 2020
153--- In rejoinder to arguments of Advocate Venegaonkar,
learned counsel Mr. Ponda reiterated that no complaint can be
filed without final report and invited attention to the rulings
::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 22/04/2020 04:04:31 :::
HVN 93
earlier cited by him. He also distinguished the rulings cited by
Advocate Venegaonkar and points out that here even as per
respondents, the trial court has still not taken cognizance. He
submits that (1983) 2 SCC 372 : State of Uttar Pradesh
Vs. Lakshmi Brahman and another cited by Advocate
Venegaonkar is not approved in (1996) 4 SCC 495 : Raj
Kishore Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and anr. (paragraph 9).