Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.72 seconds)Ajoy Kumar Ghose vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 18 March, 2009
In Harinarayan G. Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra [(2010) 11 SCC 520 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 207] this Court reiterated the legal position stated in Ajoy Kumar Ghose [Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 14 SCC 115 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1301] and held that the right of an accused to cross-examine witnesses produced by the prosecution before framing of a charge against him was a valuable right. It was only through cross-examination that the accused could show to the court that there was no need for a trial against him and that the denial of the right of cross-examination under Section 244 would amount to denial of an opportunity to the accused to show to the Magistrate that the allegations made against him were groundless and that there was no reason for framing a charge against him.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 418 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sunil Mehta & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 20 February, 2013
11. Accordingly, present application stands allowed. Impugned order dated 11.10.2021 is hereby set aside and matter is remanded back to pass a fresh order under Section 245 Cr.P.C. on the basis of evidence on record taking note of Sunil Mehta (supra) within a period of four weeks from today.
Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Abdul Nabi vs Gulam Murthuza Khan And Anr. on 13 April, 1966
For this, the learned Single Judge in that matter relied on the ruling in Abdul Nabi v. Gulam Murthuza Khan [1968 Cri LJ 303 (AP)] ."
Harinarayan G Bajaj vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 6 January, 2010
The following passages are in this regard apposite: (Harinarayan G. Bajaj case [(2010) 11 SCC 520 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 207] , SCC p. 526, paras 18 & 20)
"18. This Court has already held that right to cross-examine the witnesses who are examined before framing of the charge is a very precious right because it is only by cross-examination that the accused can show to the court that there is no need of a trial against him. It is to be seen that before framing of the charge under Section 246, the Magistrate has to form an opinion about there being a ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence triable under the Chapter. If it is held that there is no right of cross-examination under Section 244, then the accused would have no opportunity to show to the Magistrate that the allegations are groundless and that there is no scope for framing a charge against him.