Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.34 seconds)
Union Of India & Ors vs Major General Madan Lal Yadav [Retd.] on 22 March, 1996 cites

Harish Chandra Bajpai vs Triloki Singh on 21 December, 1956

Our view gets fortified by two decisions of this Court in Harish Chandra Baijapi & Anr. v Triloki Singh & Anr. [AIR 1957 SC 444] wherein the question was: as to when the trial begins in an election dispute under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? The respondents had filed election petitions against the appellant under Section 81 of that Act alleging that the appellant had committed number of corrupt practices and the respondents prayed for declaration that the appellant's election was void. After trial, the election was set aside against which the appeal came to be filed ultimately in this Court. One of the questions was: whether the particulars of the corrupt practices and amendment therefore is vaild in law and whether they are maintainable in appeal? In that context, the question arose: as to when the trial began? It was contended therein that the order amending pleadings under Order 6 Rule 17, CPC was not part of the trial and, therefore, it could not be subject of consideration in appeal. Considering the above question, this Court held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 137 - Full Document

Devi Lal And Anr. vs The State Of Rajasthan on 8 April, 1971

In support of this contention, reliance is placed by Shri Bobde on Devi Lal & Anr. v. The State of Rajasthan [(1971) 3 SCC 471] wherein the High Court had confirmed the conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentence for imprisonment for life. This Court found that the prosecution had not proved as to which of the two persons had opened the fire as found by the Sessions Court and the distinction between Section 149 and 34, IPC was not clearly noticed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. When retrial was sought for by the prosecution, this Court rejected the contention on the ground that retrial at such a belated stage was not justifiable. The ratio has no application to the facts in this case. Therein, the trial was proceeded with and when the accused was convicted by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court found that the prosecution had not established the case in accordance with law and had not proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Under those circumstances, this Court had rightly declined to order retrial. But the ratio does not fit into the facts of this case. It is seen that the respondent had frustrated the trial by escaping from detention and reappeared after the limitation for trial of the offence was barred. Therefore, acceptance of the contentions would amount to putting a premium on avoidance.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 28 - A N Ray - Full Document
1