Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
M/S.Narne Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs Narne Gopal Naidu, on 29 January, 2020 cites

Central Bureau Of Investigation vs R.S. Pai And Another on 3 April, 2002

The underlined portion "shall", as a matter of fact, mandates an Investigating Officer to place the additional material / evidence before the Court. It may be noted that in the judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Central Bureau of Investigation v. R.S. Pai's case (cited supra), the Supreme Court while holding that "shall" occurring in Section 173(8) cannot be interpreted as mandatory, on the other hand, preserved the right under Section 173(8) and held that the word "shall" in the context of the duty of the Investigating Officer has to be viewed as mandatory, in the interests of justice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 104 - Full Document

V. Bhaskaran Etc. vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 15 December, 2017

The objection of the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 is also liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in V.C. Shukla's case (cited supra) wherein, in para 100, it was held that "the test formulated by the Court was that any order which substantially affects the rights of the accused or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order. The fact that the controversy still remains alive was considered irrelevant". Hence, the said ratio will have preferential application.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - D Misra - Full Document

Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977

In Madhu Limaya's case, the Supreme Court opined that Section 397(2) of the code shall not be deemed to limit or affect the inherent power because it would be setting at naught one of the limitations imposed upon the revisional jurisdiction. The bar provided in section 397(2) operates only in exercise of the revisional power of the High Court meaning thereby that the high court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order. The inherent power would come into play when there is no other provision in the code for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party, in case the impugned order brings about a situation which is an abuse of the process of the court or for the purpose of securing the ends of justice interference by the High Court is absolutely necessary, then nothing contained in section 397(2) can limit or affect the exercise of inherent power by the High Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1313 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

Sethuraman vs Rajamanickam on 18 March, 2009

Be that as it may, in the case on hand, though the Application is made invoking Section 242(2) read with Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., the right conferred on the prosecution under Section 173(8) cannot be whittled down by mere reference to a wrong provision of law. So far as the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sethuraman's case, the same has no application to the facts of the present case, as, admittedly, the Application made by the Public Prosecutor was not under Section 91 Cr.P.C., which 11 empowers the Court to summon a witness / document. Even otherwise, without getting into the controversy, it may be noted, what all required to invoke Section 173(8) is - leave of the Court to be obtained for filing additional documents that too in the prescribed format. A perusal of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the format prescribed thereunder as well as the formats prescribed under the Criminal Rules of Practice, as applicable to the State, do not disclose any specific proforma having been prescribed for filing additional documents, except Format 20 for filing the charge sheet. The word 'prescribed', as defined under Section 2(t) by the Rules made under this Code does not contain any prescribed format for filing the material documents more particularly one in relation to Section 173(8). In other words, in normal parlance, either by way of additional charge sheet or by way of a challan, the documents can be placed before the Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 437 - V S Sirpurkar - Full Document
1