Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Singh & Ors vs Ram Niwas & Anr on 13 May, 2009
It is pertinent to mention here that regarding the involvement of opposite parties no.2 & 3 in the crime, the statement of PW1 Haji Shafiq Ahmad, revisionist is fully intact and if for some accused there is minor contradiction regarding his involvement, it cannot be said that the said contradiction affects the truthfulness of the entire statement of the witness. The trial court has although considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Ram Singh and others Vs. Ram Niwas and another [2009 (65) ACC 971]; Sarvjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009 CriLJ 3978; Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq, 2007 CriLJ 3198, but did not visualize the proposition and observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said cases in its proper perspective.
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 25 August, 2004
Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict Sarojben, Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2012 CriLJ, 430 has considered and elaborated the ambit and scope of Section 319 of the Code and after considering and discussing a catena of decisions given by itself including Joginder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (1979) 1 SCC 345; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 15; Michael Machado and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 262; Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738; Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 7 SCC 792; Palanisami Gounder and Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2005) 12 SCC 327 and Guriya alias Tabassum Tauquir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2007) 8 SCC 224 has held that the legal position can be culled out from the material provisions of Section 319 of the Code and the decided cases of this Court is this:
Thirumalai Gounder, T. Palanisami And ... vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary ... on 28 March, 2003
Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict Sarojben, Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2012 CriLJ, 430 has considered and elaborated the ambit and scope of Section 319 of the Code and after considering and discussing a catena of decisions given by itself including Joginder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (1979) 1 SCC 345; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 15; Michael Machado and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 262; Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738; Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 7 SCC 792; Palanisami Gounder and Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2005) 12 SCC 327 and Guriya alias Tabassum Tauquir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2007) 8 SCC 224 has held that the legal position can be culled out from the material provisions of Section 319 of the Code and the decided cases of this Court is this:
Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007
Hon'ble Apex Court in its verdict Sarojben, Ashwinkumar Shah etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2012 CriLJ, 430 has considered and elaborated the ambit and scope of Section 319 of the Code and after considering and discussing a catena of decisions given by itself including Joginder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. (1979) 1 SCC 345; Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. (1983) 1 SCC 15; Michael Machado and Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 262; Shashikant Singh Vs. Tarkeshwar Singh and Anr. (2002) 5 SCC 738; Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka (2004) 7 SCC 792; Palanisami Gounder and Anr. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (2005) 12 SCC 327 and Guriya alias Tabassum Tauquir and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (2007) 8 SCC 224 has held that the legal position can be culled out from the material provisions of Section 319 of the Code and the decided cases of this Court is this:
Lok Ram vs Nihal Singh & Anr on 10 April, 2006
Hon'ble Apex Court in its decision Lok Ram Vs. Nihal Singh reported in (2006)10 SCC 192 has held that power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the court suo motu or on an application by someone including the accused already before it. If it is satisfied that any person other than the accused has committed an offence he is to be tried together with the accused. Such person, even though had initially been named in the FIR as an accused, but not charge sheeted, can also be added to face the trial. It has also been held that the power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier.
Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 6 August, 2007
Hon'ble Apex Court in its another verdict given in Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Anr. reported in AIR 2007 SC 2786 while considering the scope and ambit of Section 319 of the Code has held that there is no reason to describe the power as an extraordinary power or to confine the exercise of it only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizance against any other person against whom action has not been taken. After all, the section only gives power to the court to ensure that all those apparently involved in the commission of an offence are tried together and none left out. There is no reason to curtail this power of the Court to do justice to the victim and to the society. It is left to the judicial discretion of the Court, judicially trained, to decide to proceed or not to proceed against a person in terms of Section 319 of the Code.
Mohd. Shafi vs Mohd. Rafiq & Anr on 9 April, 2007
It is pertinent to mention here that regarding the involvement of opposite parties no.2 & 3 in the crime, the statement of PW1 Haji Shafiq Ahmad, revisionist is fully intact and if for some accused there is minor contradiction regarding his involvement, it cannot be said that the said contradiction affects the truthfulness of the entire statement of the witness. The trial court has although considered the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court given in Ram Singh and others Vs. Ram Niwas and another [2009 (65) ACC 971]; Sarvjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others, 2009 CriLJ 3978; Mohd. Shafi Vs. Mohd. Rafiq, 2007 CriLJ 3198, but did not visualize the proposition and observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said cases in its proper perspective.