Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (1.84 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Surinder Mohan And Others on 7 February, 2000

Asokan vs State Of Kerala on 3 August, 2005

60, Ranadhir Basu v. State of West Bengal, and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder Mohan and Ors., to the effect that the accused have no right of cross-examination of the approver examined under Section 306(4) Cr.P.C. But every decision has to be understood with reference to the facts situation obtained in such case, as has been held in Padma Sundara Rao v. State of T.N., and Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, . Hence those accused who had cross-examined the approver had the opportunity to do so and the cross-examination was also as of right making the evidence of the approver admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act. Opportunity to cross-examine does not mean actual cross-examination but only providing a chance to cross-examine and it is for the accused to avail of the same. Hence, those accused persons who did not cross-examine the approver, were not availing of the opportunity to do so in spite of having been given a right to cross-examine the approver and the evidence of the approver, in the circumstances of the case, is admissible under Section 33 of the Evidence Act in the case of those accused persons as well.
Kerala High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 7 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

Narendra Kumar @ Kallu And Anr vs State Anr on 16 March, 2021

However, it is evident from a bare perusal of the evidence of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shri Satyanarayan Vyas (P.W.24), that after tendering pardon to accomplice/approver Chandrapal @ Kalu and after taking cognizance of the offence, he was indeed examined on oath as a witness and his statement has been exhibited as Ex.P10. It is true that the counsel who had appeared on behalf of the accused at that stage, was also the counsel for the complainant in the original complaint and, that no cross- examination was made from the Approver at the pre-committal (Downloaded on 17/03/2021 at 08:32:20 PM) (29 of 34) [CRLA-862/2011] stage. However, the issue regarding the right to cross-examine an Approver stands concluded by Hon'ble the Supreme Court beyond the pale of doubt in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surinder Mohan (supra) holding thus:
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State Th. Cbi Chennai vs V. Arul Kumar on 13 May, 2016

He also referred and relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Surinder Mohan and Others3, for the proposition that at the time of recording of approvers evidence by Magistrate at pre-committal stage i.e. at the time of investigation or inquiry for offence triable by Sessions Court, accused persons have no right to cross examine the approver.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 33 - Cited by 8 - A K Sikri - Full Document

S.S.Govindaraj vs State Represented By on 17 September, 2021

20.In State of H.P V. Surinder Mohan reported in (2000) 2 SCC 396 : AIR 2000 SC 1892, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned in a case where the accused and some other persons were arrested in connection with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 17 murder of two persons. While in custody, he submitted an application through the Superintendent of Jail to the CJM expressing his intention to make a true disclosure of the facts regarding the incident. The CJM issued a notice fixing a date. On that day, the accused was produced before the CJM. It was explained to the approver that his statement could be used against him also and with a view to give time to the accused before becoming an approver, the case was adjourned to another date and on that day he was examined and pardon was granted to him. But at that stage the remaining accused were not asked to cross-examine him. A formal challan was submitted before the Magistrate by the investigating officer. After complying with the objections, the case was committed to the Court of Session. During the trial the approver was examined and on the same day he was cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. Witnesses for the defence were examined. During the period when the arguments were heard and the Sessions Judge visited the spot with a view to appreciate the evidence-on-record the contention was raised for the first time that the procedure prescribed under Section 306(4)(a) Cr.P.C was not complied with and therefore, the trial was vitiated. Till then none of the accused raised such an objection and they never felt the need to raise it. The Additional https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 18 Sessions Judge acquitted the accused-respondents for the offence under Sections 302, 380, 457, 120-B read with Section 34 IPC. The State's appeal before the High Court was dismissed solely on the ground that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had failed to comply with the mandatory directions contained in Section 306(4)(a) Cr.P.C as no statement of the approver was recorded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate during the committal proceedings, which vitiated the committal of the accused persons to the Court of Session and consequently the trial by the Sessions Judge. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document

Mubarak, S/O. Kunhumon vs The State Of Kerala, Represented By The ... on 16 September, 2002

In State of H.P. v. Surinder Mohan and Ors. 2000(1) RCR (Crl.) 618 (SC) : 2000(2) SCC 396, this Court dealt with the contention that before the granting pardon under Section 306 of the Criminal Procedure Code., accused should be permitted to cross examine such person whose evidence is recorded by the Magistrate. The court negatived the said contention by holding that at the time of investigation or inquiry into an offence, the accused cannot claim any right under law to cross-examine the witness. The right to cross-examine would arise only at the time of trial. During the course of investigation by the police, the question of cross-examination by the accused does not arise. Similarly, under Section 200 Criminal Procedure Code, when the Magistrate before taking cognizance of the offence, that is, before the issuing process holds the inquiry, the accused has no right to be heard, and, therefore, the question of cross-examination does not arise. Further, the person to whom pardon is granted, is examined but is not offered for cross-examination and thereafter during trial if he is examined an cross-examined then there is no question of any prejudice caused to the accused. In such cases, at the most the accused may lost the chance to cross-examine the approver twice, that is to say, once before committal and the order at the time of trial. Similar would be the position under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code.
Kerala High Court Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next