Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.34 seconds)

State Of Maharashtra vs Champalal Punjaji Shah on 12 August, 1981

(b) Where the accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial, which delay was attributable not to the tardiness or indifference of the prosecuting agencies, but to the conduct of the accused himself; or where accused had been acquitted on ground of delay in conducting trial relating to an offence which is not of a trivial nature. [State of Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah, (1981) 3 SCC 610]
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 77 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934

"9. The foregoing discussion yields the following results: (1) an appellate court has full power to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) the principles laid down in Sheo Swarup [Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor, 1934 SCC OnLine PC 42 : AIR 1934 PC 227 (2)] afford a correct guide for the appellate court's approach to a case in disposing of such an appeal; and (3) the different phraseology used in the judgments of this Court, such as, (i) "substantial and compelling reasons", (ii) "good and sufficiently cogent reasons", and (iii) "strong reasons" are not intended to curtail the undoubted power of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion; but in doing so it should not only consider every matter on record Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.947 of 2024 dt.12-02-2026 44/60 having a bearing on the questions of fact and the reasons given by the court below in support of its order of acquittal in its arriving at a conclusion on those facts, but should also express those reasons in its judgment, which lead it to hold that the acquittal was not justified."
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 816 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next