Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (5.35 seconds)
Documents citing Sheikh Madinabibi Mustafabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 12 October, 2004

Saiyed Mehmood Hussein Mullaji vs State Of on 23 September, 2013

15. The petitioner is relying upon following cases (1) Sheikh Madinabibi Mustafabhai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in 2005(2) GLH 7 which simply confirms that original complainant has locus standi to prefer revision when it is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice, when the trial Court has rejected the application for re-examination of certain witnesses filed by the complainant and supported by the learned APP.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - S G Shah - Full Document

Kishor Amrutlal Thakkar vs State Of on 28 March, 2013

8) 7.4 The argument that the applications Exh. 266 and 276 were at the belated stage of trial and therefore could not be granted does not merit acceptance. The following observations deserve to be noticed from the decision of this court in Shaikh Madinabibi Mustafabhai v. State of Gujarat [(2005) 2 GLR 1339], Merely because the witness named in the application or any of them could have been called by the trial Court after conclusion of evidence of prosecution side, though is a legal submission, would not have any adverse effect on the strength of the case of the present petitioner. A party may not wait till wisdom emerge and can point out the need. If any party including the original complainant feels that a particular witness is required to be called, (i) though not named in the charge-sheet, (ii) if named, but decision to drop that witness has been conveyed to the Court, or (iii) any witness examined earlier be recalled then it may make a legitimate request to the Court to examine that witness as Court's witness and such a party may not wait till the conclusion of evidence. Efforts may not be recent, but search to truth is a legal obligation that requires to be discharged with utmost care and diligence.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document

Dipika Lal vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 22 February, 2018

The plea that is sought to be raised by learned counsel for the petitioner who has placed reliance on 'Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & others' 2010(1) RCR (Criminal) 909; 'Haribhau & another v. State of Maharashtra & another' 2006 M.C.R. 1137; Shailendra Kumar v. State of Bihar & others' 2002 AIR (SC) 270; 'Sheikh Madinabibi Mustafabhai v. State of Gujarat' (2005)2 GLR 1339;
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - F D Singh - Full Document

M/S Shubham Jewellers vs Veekay & Company on 9 April, 2018

9. If   there   is   a   procedural   lapse  that   materially   affects   the rights of the accused and deprives him of a fair trial, the order   cannot   be   immunized   from   scrutiny   of   revisional court. Where there has been a departure from the process established by law, it is the duty of the revisional court to intervene and to rectify the error so as to place the trial CR. Rev. No. 453/17    Page No. 6 of 14 back on track.  This is the very purpose of  conferring wide powers   on   the   revisional   court.   It   cannot   be   a   mere spectator   to   miscarriage   of   justice,   waiting   for   the   final judgment   to   be   passed   before   exercising  the   jurisdiction vest in it. The decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the   case   of   Sheikh  Madinabibi   Mustafabhai   vs   State   Of Gujarat, (2005) 2 GLR 1339, decided on 12 October, 2004 deals with the instant issue in detail and lends supports to the view that the order in question is not interlocutory and the revision petition is maintainable.
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prem Prakash vs . Nirmala Kumari on 12 December, 2018

CR/62/18 Prem Prakash Vs. Nirmala Kumari "A Single Bench view of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the   case   of  'Sheikh  Madinabibi   Mustafabhai   v.   State   of  Gujarat' 2005(2) GCD 1379  faced with a similar situation, after taking into consideration plethora of case law of various Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court, has tried to transverse the meaning and the logic behind it, holding that an order under Section 311 of the Code is not an interlocutory order and that the revision is maintainable against the order passed on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C."
Delhi District Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Cbi vs Mohd. Salim Khatri on 3 September, 2025

A Single Bench view of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of 'Sheikh Madinabibi Mustafabhai v. State of Gujarat' 2005(2) GCD 1379 faced with a similar situation, after taking into consideration plethora of case law of various Courts including the Hon'ble Apex Court, has tried to transverse the meaning and the logic behind it, holding that an order under Section 311 of the Code is not an interlocutory order and that the revision is maintainable against the order passed on application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Delhi District Court Cites 58 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mustakali Mahmedbhai Shaikh And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 15 March, 2007

in Shaikh Madinabibi Mustafabhai v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Revision Application No. 94 of 2004 (), in support of the submission that the application of the petitioners could not have been dismissed on the plea of locus standi and the present revision application, upon the applicants being aggrieved by the impugned order, was also maintainable.
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - D H Waghela - Full Document
1