Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 102 (3.14 seconds)
Documents citing Machander, Son Of Pandurang vs State Of Hyderabad on 27 September, 1955

Ranjit Mondal And Sajal Barui And Etc. vs State on 31 January, 1997

In Machander v. Hyderabad State, , it was held that the Judges and Magistrates should realize the importance of the examination Under Section 342, Cr. P.C. It is their duty to question the accused properly and fairly, bringing home to his mind in clear and simple language to the exact case he has to meet and each material point, that is sought to be made against him and of affording him a chance to explain them, if he can and so desires.
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav vs The State Of Bihar Thru. Cbi on 17 May, 2013

(xiv) In this connection it is also relevant to point out that the reliance by the defence on the case of Machander Vs. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1955 SC 792) is totally misconceived and unfounded as this judgment nowhere postulates the actual production of the material Ext. before the accused while his 313 Cr.P.C. statement is being recorded. In the said case the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.418 of 2008 dt.17-05-2013 209 circumstance of confession itself was not put to the accused. In this regard reference is drawn to the case of A.A. Pareira Vrs. State of Maharashtra (2012) Vol. 1 PLJR 290 (SC) which lays down the test of prejudice and also states that failure in not drawing the attention of the accused would not by itself render the trial against the accused void and bad in law as the procedures contained in Cr.P.C. is designed to further the ends of justice and not to frustrate them by introducing hyper technicalities.
Patna High Court Cites 189 - Cited by 0 - V N Sinha - Full Document

Ajay Pratap Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 August, 2006

In the case of Machander v. State of Hyderabad (supra), it was held that the justice is not one sided. It has many facets and Court has to draw a nice balance between conflicting rights and duties. While it is incumbent on the Court to see that the guilty do not escape it is even more necessary to see that persons accused of crime are not indefinitely harassed.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - R Saksena - Full Document

Sushil Ansal vs State Thr.Cbi on 5 March, 2014

In Machander v. State of Hyderabad 1955 CriLJ 1644, this Court observed that while it is incumbent on the court to see that no guilty person escapes, it is still more its duty to see that justice is not delayed and accused persons are not indefinitely harassed. The scales, the court observed, must be held even between the prosecution and the accused. In the facts of that case, the court refused to order trial on account of the time already spent and other relevant circumstances of that case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 91 - Cited by 0 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Nar Singh vs State Of Haryana on 11 November, 2014

In Machander v. State of Hyderabad (1955) 2 SCR 524 this Court observed that while it is in- cumbent on the Court to see that no guilty per- sons escapes, it is still more its duty to see that justice is not delayed and accused persons are not indefinitely harassed. The scales, the Court observed, must be held even between the prose- cution and the accused. In the facts of that case, 23 the Court refused to order trial on account of the time already spent and other relevant circum- stances of that case.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R Banumathi - Full Document

Jayanti Kundu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 April, 2022

In Machander v. State of Hyderabad this Court observed that while it is incumbent on the Court to see that no guilty persons escapes, it is still more its duty to see that justice is not delayed and accused persons are not indefinitely harassed. The scales, the Court observed, must be held even between the prosecution and the 10 accused. In the facts of that case, the Court refused to order trial on account of the time already spent and other relevant circumstances of that case.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - D Roshan - Full Document

Jayantibhai Tapubhai Ambalia vs State Of Gujarat on 20 July, 2023

In Machander v. State of Hyderabad: 1955 CriLJ 1644 , this Court observed that while it is incumbent on the court to see that no guilty person escapes, it is still more its duty to see that justice is not delayed and accused persons are not indefinitely harassed. The scales, the court observed, must be held even between the prosecution and the accused. In the facts of that case, the court refused to order trial on account of the time already spent and other relevant circumstances of Page 20 of 40 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 16 22:23:51 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/8222/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 20/07/2023 undefined that case.
Gujarat High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next