Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.44 seconds)The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1962
(Vide Chinnaswamy v. Stale of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1962 SC 1738) : 1963-1 Cri LJ 8. In this decision, the Supreme Court gave some illustrations indicating cases of the aforesaid kind which occur in para 7 in the following words ;
Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 3 November, 1955
(3) Mr. Desai requests for certificate under Article 134(1)(c). We do not consider that the question raised is a difficult question of law which should require further consideration by the Supreme Court as observed in Sunder Singh v. State of U. P. .
Pandit Ram Narain vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Andothers on 20 September, 1956
Similarly, in Ram Narain v. State of U. P. , it was laid down that sentence can be enhanced if it was "so manifestly inadequate as to have resulted in failure of justice."
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
D. Stephens vs Nosibolla on 2 March, 1951
18. In respect of exercise of powers of revision against acquittal, the Supreme Court said that the same can be exercised "only in exceptional cases where the interests of public justice required interference for the correction of a manifest illegality, or the prevention of a gross miscarriage of justice." It was not to be exercised only because the lower Court has taken a wrong view of law (Vide D. Stephens v, Nosibolla ) : 52 Cri LJ 510. In another decision the Supreme Court said that the jurisdiction in revision against acquittal should be exercised only In exceptional cases, where there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law ; and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
1