State vs N on 26 February, 2010
Under the circumstances, in view of para-37 of
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramchandra vs.
State of Karnataka (supra) matter requires to be remanded back
for fresh trial.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 1429 (1.54 seconds)Documents citing
P. Ramachandra Rao vs State Of Karnataka on 16 April, 2002
State vs N on 26 February, 2010
Under the circumstances, in view of para-37 of
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramchandra vs.
State of Karnataka (supra) matter requires to be remanded back
for fresh trial.
State vs Anand on 23 February, 2010
Under the circumstances, in view of para-37 of
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramchandra vs.
State of Karnataka (supra) matter requires to be remanded back
for fresh trial.
State vs N on 26 February, 2010
Under the circumstances, in view of para-37 of
the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramchandra vs.
State of Karnataka (supra) matter requires to be remanded back
for fresh trial.
Chandrapal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 November, 2023
V. Whether the directions contained in paras 34, 36, 37 in Asian Resurfacing (supra) can be issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and would such directions not contravene the law laid down by the Supreme Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in A. R. Antulay (supra) and P. Ramachandra Rao (supra)?
Santosh Kumar Panja & Ors vs The State Of West Bengal on 28 November, 2008
Para. 11. "A seven-Judge Bench of this Court in P.
Ramchandra Rao V. State of Karnataka affirmed the view taken in
Abdul Rehman Antulay V. R.S. Nayak and clarified confusion created
by certain observations in Common Cause, A Registered Society V.
Union of India, Common Cause, A Registered Society V. Union of
India, Raj Deo Sharma V. State of Bihar and Raj Deo Sharma (II) V.
State of Bihar.
Motty Philipose And Anr. vs State Of Kerala on 22 November, 2005
This had to be considered first by a Division Bench and later by a Full Bench. Therefore, the delay could not have been avoided in this case and other similar cases. By reason of that delay, no prejudice had really occurred to the accused, if not they were benefited by averting or postponing the final verdict. Therefore, even applying the dictum in Ramchandra Rao's case 2002 Cri LJ 2547 restating the principles in Antulay case 1992 Cri LJ 2717, it cannot be conceded that the appellants/accused can escape from any sentence, taking shelter under the cover of right to speedy trial in this case.
Gopasree Das And Anr. vs Krishnendu Banerjee And Ors. on 22 January, 2004
12. Moreover, as has been said in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, 2002 Cr. LJ 2547, in our anxiety to protect the right of speedy trial of an accused, scuttling a trial without adjudication, stultifying access to justice and giving easy exit from the portals of justice is unwarranted.
Sri Haridwar Pandey (Advocate) vs The State Of Bihar Thru. Vig. on 10 April, 2013
In our view, this submission of the
learned Senior Counsel cannot be accepted
by us, in view of the observations of this
Court in P. Ramachandra case. Before
parting with the case, we should certainly
give credit to our judicial officers, who have
painstakingly suffered with all the dilatory
tactics adopted by the accused in dragging on
the proceedings for nearly thirty-seven years.
The State Of Maharashtra vs Rangrao Anna Patil on 29 November, 2018
However, during the course of the pendency of this Appeal, the Supreme
Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (supra)
held that the ratio laid down in Rajdeo Sharma's case is no longer good in
law. Needless to state that, Appeal is in continuation of original
11/12
::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:45:24 :::
(324) Apeal 281-99.doc
proceeding. Thus, in the light of guideline issued by the Supreme Court,
we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to justify
and explain an inordinate delay in adducing the evidence before the
learned Magistrate. Thus, the right to speedy trial of the Respondent-
accused has been infringed. We find after going through the record
minutely, particularly, the copy of the roznama, that the Respondent-
accused was not at fault for the delay in trial. At present, 33 years have
been lapsed from the date of framing of the charge and recording plea of
the Respondent-accused. In view of the same, we find no substance in this
Appeal and the Appeal is, thus, liable to be dismissed.