Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (1.63 seconds)
Shubham Bansal vs The State ( Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) & Anr on 4 December, 2019 cites

Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya & Anr vs S.N. Thakur And Anr on 25 April, 1986

"The only legal issue raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the discharge of the petitioners by the learned Magistrate amounted to acquittal and against an order of acquittal, no revision was maintainable as the only remedy available to the respondent was by way of filing leave to appeal before this Court under Section 378 Cr.P.C. He has relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Major General, A.S.Gauraya and another v. S.N.Thakur and another, 1986 Criminal Law Journal 1074 and judgments of this Court in Municipal Committee v. Shri Labhu Ram and others, 1969 Current Law Journal 619; Arjan Dass v. Market Committee, Hissar, 1980 Punjab Law Reporter 469; Bal Ram Suraj v. Dev Raj Dhiman, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 616; Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana and another, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 317; State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, 1996(3) Recent Criminal Reports 134."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 153 - V Khalid - Full Document

Sarah Mathew vs Inst., Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors on 26 November, 2013

22. The issue raised by the accused/petitioner in the petitioner under section 482 Cr.P.C. pertaining to limitation in filing the charge-sheet/report is also no more res-integra having been finally settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting section 468 of Cr.P.C. governing limitation period, in case of Japani Sahu vs. Chandra Shekhar: AIR 2007 SC 2762 followed in Mrs.Sarah Mathew & Ors. vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases: AIR 2014 SC 448, based upon which the Session's Court set aside the discharge order passed by the Trial Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 234 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1