Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Kullan vs Emperor on 17 November, 1908

Emperor vs Khiali on 3 January, 1917

Whatever weight is to be attached to this judgement, the same High Court in Kullan v. Emperor (1908) I.L.R. 32 Mad. 173 held that under Section 339, Criminal Procedure Code, there is no necessity for withdrawal, and withdrawal has no effect. In this particular case the pardon in question had been tendered by the committing magistrate. The person to whom it had been tendered had at the trial before the Sessions Judge retracted the evidence previously given by him, and the District Magistrate, who was not the person who had tendered the pardon, purported to withdraw the pardon, and the appellant was subsequently tried and convicted of dacoity, the offence of which a pardon had been tendered.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Khiali vs Emperor on 3 January, 1917

I agree with the view taken by the learned Judges who decided the case of Kullan v. Emperor 2 Ind. Cas. 343 : 32 M. 173 : 9 Cr. L.J. 671. If the accused is committed to the Court of Session, it will still be open to him to plead pardon as a bar to his trial. The prosecution will have to prove that the pardon has been forfeited. The concluding words of the judgment are perhaps out of place and are not to be taken as in any way affecting the plea of the bar of pardon, if put forward. With this modification the application is dismissed.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karuppa Servai vs Kundaru Alias Muniandi Thevan on 10 December, 1951

272, and the ruling of another Bench of this Court, consisting of Wallis and Pinhey JJ., in -- 'Kullan v. Emperor', 32 Mad. 173. In the latter ruling, it is specifically mentioned that the condition on which the approver is tendered a pardon is broken if he withdraws before the sessions court statements made before the committing Magistrate's court or even statements in his examination-in-chief in the sessions court itself in cross-examination. So, if committal ensues, the stage at which it is to be seen whether the approver has kept his condition or not is the stage of the trial in the sessions court, and in the light of his evidence in chief-examination, cross-examination and re-examination in the sessions court compared with his statement in the Committal court. That is also obvious from Section 337(3), Criminal Procedure Code, itself where the word used is "trial", and not "enquiry."
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Emperor vs Sabar Akunji on 19 August, 1914

In support of this view, and for the information of the Sessions Judge, we would refer him more particularly to the following reported cases: Emperor v. Kotliia (1906) I. L. R. 30 Bom, 611., Kullan v. Emperor (1908) I. L. R. 32 Mad, 178. and Emperor v. Abani Bhushau Chuckerbutty (1910) I. L. R. 37 Calc. 845, 851. With these remarks we return the record and direct that the trial be now proceeded with.
Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1