Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 165 (1.75 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhooraji & Ors on 24 August, 2001

Asokan Nambiar vs State Of Kerala on 2 August, 2004

The learned Prosecutor, on the contrary, points out the decision in State of M.P. v. Bhooraji (2001) 7 SCC 679) where the identical question was considered by another two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court. They had come to the conclusion that notwithstanding the infraction of the provisions of Section 193 of the Cr.P.C, the completed trial need not be set aside and a de novo trial cannot and need not be directed.
Kerala High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - R Basant - Full Document

Keshav Singh vs State Of M.P. on 21 September, 2006

24. Therefore, in view of the judgment in the case of State of M.P. v. Bhooraji (supra), the position is now very clear on the point that an investigation conducted by a police, officer who is not competent to do it would not vitiate the trial because a defect or, illegality in an investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or procedure relating to cognizance or trial.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Alias Santu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 February, 2026

In Bhooraji's case [State of M.P. v. Bhooraji, (2001) 7 SCC 679], the Court referred to Chapter XXXV of the Code and, particularly, Sections 461, 462 and 465 (1). After noticing the above provisions, the Court observed in paragraphs (15) and (16) of the order as follows: (SCC p.687) "15. A reading of the section makes it clear that the error, omission or irregularity in the proceedings held before or during the trial or in any enquiry were reckoned by the legislature as possible occurrences in criminal courts. Yet the legislature disfavoured axing down the proceedings or to direct repetition of the whole proceedings afresh. Hence, the legislature imposed a prohibition that unless such error, omission or irregularity has occasioned "a failure of justice" the superior court shall not quash the proceedings merely on the ground of such error, omission or irregularity.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - R Sinha - Full Document

Vilas Arjun Patil & 8 Ors vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 April, 2015

In the case of Bhooraji & Ors. (supra), the Special Court had taken the cognisance without committal proceedings. But the said Court was competent to try. In the present case, cognisance was taken by the 15 / 21 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2015 00:00:06 ::: apeal.401.1996 (j).doc Magistrate, rightly so. However, assuming the Sessions Court committed error in trying the said offences, it cannot vitiate the trial. The Supreme Court has held that not following the procedure is an irregularity and it is curable which is covered under section 465 of the Criminal Procedure Code. So also, it is observed that the objections should have been taken at the earliest stage and so the remedial measures are possible.
Bombay High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - M Bhatkar - Full Document

J.V. Baharuni vs State Of Gujarat on 16 October, 2014

Hence the said course can be resorted to when it becomes imperative for the purpose of averting “failure of justice”. The superior Court which orders a de novo trial cannot afford to overlook the realities and the serious impact on the pending cases in trial courts which are crammed with dockets, and how much that order would inflict hardship on many innocent persons who once took all the 47 trouble to reach the Court and deposed their versions in the very same case. The re-enactment of the whole labour might give the impression to the litigant and the common man that law is more pedantic than pragmatic. Law is not an instrument to be used for inflicting sufferings on the people but for the process of justice dispensation [See State of M.P. Vs. Bhooraji (2001) 7 SCC 679].
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 44 - Cited by 34 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Karan vs State Nct Of Delhi on 27 November, 2020

In State of M.P. v. Bhooraji, (2001) 7 SCC 679, the Supreme Court held that the irregularity of the Sessions Court taking cognizance of the offence without the case being committed has not caused any prejudice to the accused. The Supreme Court further held that any de novo trial should be the last resort and that too only when such a course becomes so desperately indispensable. It should be limited to the extreme exigency to avert "a failure of justice". Any omission or even the illegality in the procedure which does not affect the core of the case is not a ground for ordering a de novo trial. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:
Delhi High Court Cites 146 - Cited by 0 - J R Midha - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next