Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.65 seconds)
Documents citing Srinivasa Gopal vs Union Territory Of Arunachal Pradesh ... on 18 July, 1988

Smt. Archana Guha vs Ranjit Alias Runu Guha Neogi And Ors. on 5 March, 1990

While on the point and on the question of dehumanising factor of a prolonged delayed proceedings, Mr. Dutt referred to the case of T.V. Valheaswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (1983 Cri LJ 48I) (SC) (supra) and Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradcsh (1988 Cri LJ 1803) (SC) (supra), apart from relying on the case of The State v. Maksudan Singh (1985 Cri LJ 1782) (Patna) (FB) (supra) and Rakesh Saxena v. State through C.B.I. (supra). We have indicated the characteristic feature of those cases earlier and we further feel that the observations as made in those cases, would not apply with full vigour as claimed by Mr. Dutt, in a case of the present nature and more particularly when, the writ petitioner Respondent Mr. Guha Neogi is a Police officer.
Calcutta High Court Cites 70 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Pranavbhai Prabodbhai Joshi vs State Of Gujarat & on 17 February, 2016

The Apex Court in case of Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh [Supra] was dealing with Page 6 of 9 HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Sun Feb 28 02:59:58 IST 2016 R/SCR.A/1011/2016 ORDER offence punishable under Sections 279, 304A, 338 IPC. As the cognizance was not taken for nine years and the period of limitation would be three years, the Court had quashed the complaint. This would have no applicability as far as the present case is concerned because of the offence involved in the instant case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Shakil Ahmad Ata vs The State Of Bihar on 5 January, 2026

In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court categorically held that when a statute prescribes a specific period of limitation for taking cognizance, courts are duty-bound to strictly adhere to it. Any extension must be preceded by recorded reasons reflecting judicial satisfaction. Failure to do so renders the continuation of criminal proceedings arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional.
Patna High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagat Singh @ Jagat Pehalwan vs State on 16 August, 2023

petitioners/accused has submitted that the impugned order under revision was passed by the learned trial court on dated 11.11.2022, but, the previous counsel of the petitioners/accused did not inform to the petitioners/accused about the impugned order and thereafter, on engaging new counsel, the counsel for the petitioners/accused has filed the present revision petition on dated 26.07.2023 alongwith the application u/s. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act and submitted that the delay in filing of the present revision petition may be condoned off. He has also relied upon the judgments in case, 'Shri Sanjay Nirupam Vs. The State of Maharashtra', WP 868/15 dated 02.11.2017 and 'Srinivas Gopal Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh', (1988) 4 SCC 36.
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sewa Singh vs K.C. Kanungo on 20 December, 1991

In the case of Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1988 Cri LJ 1803 (SC) (supra) the accused persons were charged with the offence of rash and negligent driving under Section 279 read with Section 304-A/338 of I.P.C. and the case was pending for nine and half years. The Supreme Court has held that the alleged offence not being a grave or heinous one keeping a person in suspended animation for nine and half years without any cause at all cannot be with the spirit of the procedure established by law. The Supreme Court, therefore, thought it just and fair and in accordance with equity to direct that trial of the accused not to proceed any further.
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Abdul Hamid And Ors. vs The State Of West Bengal on 22 September, 1995

5. In support of his contention Mr. Roy relied on some decisions of the Supreme Court and also of this Court, to wit. The State of Bihar v. Uma Shankar Kotriwal, reported in AIR 1981 SC 641, to point out that where the trial is pending for more than 20 years the High Court quashed the proceeding and the Supreme Court did not interfere with the High Court's order; Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh reported in 1989 Cri LR (SC) 26 (Sic), where the Supreme Court has held that enormous delay in a proceeding with the criminal prosecution by the appellant nine and half years for a trial for rash and negligent driving is too long a time.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Darshan Singh Sodhi vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 11 February, 1997

The reliance of the learned counsel for the petitioner on Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal, 1988 SCC (Cri) 889 : 1988 Cri LJ 1803 is also misplaced as that was a case where the prosecution was launched after a delay of 91/2 years in an offence under Section 279 read with Section 304-A, Indian Penal Code. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was also interpreting the provisions of Section 46 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which there is a specific bar.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - R L Anand - Full Document

Abdul Rehman Antulay & Ors vs R.S. Nayak & Anr on 10 December, 1991

Similarly, in Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, (Now State) [1988] su 1 S.C.R. 477, the court quashed the proceedings against the appellant on the ground of delay in investigation and commencement of trial. In this case, investigation commenced in November, 1976 and the case was registered on completion of the investigation in September, 1977. Cognizance was taken by the court in March, 1986. These facts were held sufficient to quash the proceedings particularly when the offence charged was a minor one namely, Section 304A read with 338 of the Indian Penal Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 58 - Cited by 715 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 3 Next