Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (3.35 seconds)
Documents citing Ombir Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 May, 2020

Pramod @ Papa Pandurang Garad And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 30 April, 2021

In the case of Ombir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another8, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court approved the aforesaid pronouncement and observed that delay in compliance in Section 157 cannot, in itself, be a good ground to acquit the accused. Albeit, this fact has to be considered while examining the credibility of the version of the eye witnesses.
Bombay High Court Cites 63 - Cited by 0 - N J Jamadar - Full Document

Sri Kant And Another. vs State Of U.P. on 30 May, 2022

31. Recently in Ombir Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh : (2020) 6 SCC 378, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the delay in compliance with section 157 of the Cr.P.C. cannot in itself be a ground for acquittal of the accused. The Apex Court has also held that in cases where the date and time of the lodging the F.I.R. is questioned, the report becomes more relevant. But mere delay in sending the report itself cannot lead to a conclusion that the trial is vitiated or the accused is entitled to be acquitted on this ground.
Allahabad High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sabanna S/O Kashipati Naikodi vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 September, 2022

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ombir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2020) 6 SCC 378 was pleased to observe with respect to Sections 154 and 157 of Cr.P.C. with respect to delay in sending report to Magistrate that, unless serious prejudice is demonstrated to have been suffered as against accused, mere delay in sending the FIR to Magistrate, by itself, will not have any effect on the case of prosecution. Where FIR is actually recorded without delay and investigation started on basis of that FIR, and there is no other infirmity brought to notice of court, then, whatever improper or objectionable delay of few hours in receipt of report by Magistrate concerned be, in absence of any prejudice to accused, it cannot by itself justify conclusion, that investigation was tainted and prosecution case as doubtful.
Karnataka High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - H P Sastry - Full Document
1   2 Next