Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)

Sudhir Kumar Bhole vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 September, 2017

17. It is further contended that only challenge in this revision is part of the order passed u/s 319 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, having made submission before the Supreme Court that the case do not fall u /s 319 of Cr.P.C., they are estopped to challenge the order before this Court. It is further submitted that as per the case law reported in 2010 (2) Maharashtra Law Journal (Ashok Ghanshyam Kamble Vs. CBI) the application for joining a particular person cannot be made by other accused. It is prerogative of the prosecution to file such application. He further submits that the rejection of application u/s 319 was before framing of the charge since 14 the validity of the order has to be adjudged on the date of application, the charges having been framed and 4 witnesses having already been examined, the stage for such prayer has already been passed.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaman Kumar Vaid vs The State on 3 March, 2020

7. Contention raised by ld. counsel for R-3 and R-4 is that in view of the judgment reported as Ghanshyam Kamble Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors. 2010 (2) Criminal Court Cases 63 (Bombay), application moved under Sec. 319 CrPC filed by accused is not maintainable and it is only prerogative of the State to file such application. Taking shelter of case reported as Lal Suraj @ Suraj Sing & Anr. 2009 (2) Crl.
Delhi District Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1