Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 61 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Mohan Lal & Anr vs Ajit Singh And Anr on 2 May, 1978

Amanullah vs State Of Bihar . on 12 April, 2016

Where a judgment of acquittal by the High Court has led to a serious miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot refrain from doing its duty and abstain from interfering on the ground that a private party and not the State has invoked the Court’s jurisdiction. We do not have slightest doubt that we can entertain appeals against judgments of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of interested private parties also. The circumstance that the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) does not provide for an appeal to the High Court against an order of acquittal by a subordinate court, at the instance of a private party, has no relevance to the question of the power of this Court under Article 136. We may mention that in Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh this Court interfered with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of a private party. An apprehension was expressed that if Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)No.2866 of 2011 22 appeals against judgments of acquittal at the instance of private parties are permitted there may be a flood of appeals. We do not share the apprehension. Appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution are entertained by special leave granted by this Court, whether it is the State or a private party that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court, and special leave is not granted as a matter of course but only for good and sufficient reasons, on well-established practice of this Court.”” (emphasis supplied by this Court)
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Amanullah & Anr vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 April, 2016

We may mention that in Mohan Lal v. Ajit Singh this Court interfered with a judgment of acquittal by the High Court at the instance of a private party. An apprehension was expressed that if appeals against judgments of acquittal at the instance of private parties are permitted there may be a flood of appeals. We do not share the apprehension. Appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution are entertained by special leave granted by this Court, whether it is the State or a private party that invokes the jurisdiction of this Court, and special leave is not granted as a matter of course but only for good and sufficient reasons, on well-established practice of this Court.”” (emphasis supplied by this Court) After considering the case law relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents, in the light of the material placed on record, we are of the view that the appellants have locus standi to maintain this appeal. From the material placed on record, it is clear that the appellants have precise connection with the matter at hand and thus, have locus to maintain this appeal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 172 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Ramji Lal Bairwa vs The State Of Rajasthan on 7 November, 2024

28. A bare perusal of the impugned order and in the light of the observations and binding conclusions in Gian Singh’s case (supra), bearing in mind the allegations in the subject FIR, it would reveal that the High Court has misread and misapplied the law laid down in Gian Singh’s case (supra) to quash the subject FIR and all further proceedings based in pursuance thereof. We are at a loss to understand how the High Court arrived at the conclusion that in the case on hand a dispute to be resolved exists between the parties and further that to maintain harmony the FIR and all further proceedings thereto should be quashed even without adverting to the Criminal Appeal No.3403 of 2023 Page 35 of 40 allegations raised against the 3rd respondent in the subject FIR. It is also a fact that though in terms of the decision in Gian Singh’s case (supra) an irrecusable duty of the Court to consider whether the compromise could be acted upon or not in the interest of justice, the impugned order would reveal that the High Court has failed to bestow proper consideration in that regard as well.
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - C T Ravikumar - Full Document

Sadhin Pal @ Bablu Pal And Another vs The State Of West Bengal on 17 February, 2023

The observation at para 32 of the said report that presumption of murder may not be drawn under section 114 of Evidence Act cannot be treated as a proposition of universal application in view of the ratios in the earlier decisions as discussed above particularly Mohan Lal (supra). It has to be read in the aforesaid factual matrix which is distinguishable from the present case.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - J Bagchi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next