Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 70 (1.47 seconds)
Documents citing Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 8 August, 1989

Sonu vs Central Bureau Investigation on 17 February, 2025

19. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court misinterpreted the ruling in Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal1 which holds that once the accused has been examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, in such event permitting the prosecution to recall a witness for additional evidence amounts to filling up a lacuna which is not permissible. It is also submitted that despite referring to this judgment in the impugned order, the learned Trial Court wrongly allowed the respondent‟s application, thereby, defeating the settled principles of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Shubham Yadav vs Central Bureau Investigation on 17 February, 2025

18. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court misinterpreted the ruling in Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors. v. State of West Bengal 1 which holds that once the accused has been examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, in such event permitting the prosecution to recall a witness for additional evidence amounts to filling up a lacuna, which is not permissible in law. It is also submitted that despite referring to this judgment in the impugned order, the learned Trial Court wrongly allowed the respondent‟s application, thereby defeating the settled principles of law.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - C D Singh - Full Document

Abbasali Taheralii Vora vs Trilokkumar Babubhai Bhaskar Food ... on 20 February, 2001

6.5 The learned advocate for the applicant has stated that the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate is illegal and not tenable in law because the said report Ex. 72 is admissible in evidence and defence has also not disputed to exhibit the same and to read the said report in evidence and so also the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. on Exh. 101 is illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of MIR MOHD. OMAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL (supra)) .
Gujarat High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagdish And Ors. vs The State Of U.P on 5 October, 2013

In the recent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Natasha Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, arising out of Criminal Appeal No. 709 of 2013, the Hon'ble Apex Court has relied upon and has considered earlier decisions in Mir Mohd. Omar vs. State of West Bengal (supra), Mohanlal Shamji Soni vs. Union of India and Anr.(supra), Rajeshwar Prasad Misra vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr., reported in [AIR 1965 SC 1887].
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - S Siddiqi - Full Document

Vishnu vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2019

9. The object of Section 278 of the Code is twofold, firstly to ensure that the evidence of the witness as recorded is accurate and secondly to give the witness concerned an opportunity to point out mistakes, if any. If the correction suggested by the witness is one which the Judge considers necessary he will make it at once as required by sub-section (1) of Section 278. But, if the correction is such that the Judge does not consider necessary, sub-section (2) of Section 278 requires that a memorandum of the objection be made and the Judge add his remarks, if any, thereto (See Mir Mohammad Omar v. State of West Bengal : AIR 1989 SC 1785).
Kerala High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In The Matter Of: Shyam Sunder vs State Nct Of Delhi on 5 November, 2020

In Natasha Singh v. CBI reported as (2013) 5 SCC 741, while referring to its earlier decisions in Mir Mohd. Omar v. State of W.B. reported as (1989) 4 SCC 436, Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India reported as AIR 1991 SC 1346, Rajeswar Prasad Misra v. State of W.B. reported as AIR 1965 SC 1887, Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell reported as (1999) 6 SCC 110, P. Sanjeeva Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported as (2012) 7 SCC 56, T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar reported as (2008) 5 SCC 633, the Supreme Court held as under:-
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - M K Ohri - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next