Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.37 seconds)Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mahant Abhey Dass vs S. Gurdial Singh And Ors. on 11 February, 1971
"45 In Abhey Dass v. Gurdial Singh, :
Nirmaljit Singh Hoon vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr on 6 September, 1972
Untwalia, J. who spoke for the Court in that case, quoted with approval the view expressed by Shelat, J. in Nirmajit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal, and what had been said in yet another earlier decision of the Court in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, .
Chandra Deo Singh vs Prokash Chandra Bose & Anr on 22 January, 1963
Untwalia, J. who spoke for the Court in that case, quoted with approval the view expressed by Shelat, J. in Nirmajit Singh Hoon v. State of West Bengal, and what had been said in yet another earlier decision of the Court in Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose, .
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
In the case of Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (a decision to which the trial Court referred), this Court was dealing with a case involving allegations relating to offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d) of the Act and Section 120B, IPC, as here. Fazal Ali J. indicated that the Court has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
Supdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs ... vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors on 23 August, 1979
In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal V. Anil Kumar, a three Judge Bench of this Court said:
State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977
At this stage, as was pointed out by this Court in State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh , the truth, veracity and the effect of the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged. The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged may justify the framing of charge "
Suresh Alias Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2001
6. It is well settled that for the purpose of Section 245 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to prima facie consider, whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused. If need be, reference can be had to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of SURESH v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA . Of course, while doing so, the Court can appreciate the material on record for that limited purpose and not that, it could consider as could be done while finding out the guilt or otherwise of an accused person.
S.W. Palanitkar And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 18 October, 2001
8. It is true, for an offence under Section 420 of I.P.C., as held by the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA v. A.PAREED PILLAI AND ANR. and in the case of S.W. PALANITKAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. , it has to be shown by the complainant that the intention of the accused was dishonest at the time of making the promise itself and not subsequent to it. So also, such dishonest intention of the accused at the beginning of the negotiations has to be made out by the averments in the complaint, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of HRIDAYA RANJAN PD. VERMA AND ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. AIR 2000 SC 2341 relied on for the accused.