Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Kerala, Managing Director, ... vs Puttumana Illath Jathavedan ... on 11 February, 1999
(emphasis supplied)
In State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, reported as
(1999) 2 SCC 452, the Supreme Court observed as under:
Section 360 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Haryana vs Rajmal & Anr on 25 November, 2011
1999 SCC (Cri) 275] , ordinarily it would not be
appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the
evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same
when the evidence has already been appreciated by the
Magistrate as well as by the Sessions Court in appeal.
When the courts below recorded the concurrent
findings of fact, in our view, the High Court was not
right in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact
arrived at by the courts below and the impugned order
cannot be sustained." (emphasis supplied)
In State of Haryana v. Rajmal, reported as (2011) 14 SCC 326, the Supreme
Court observed as under:
State Of A.P. vs Pituhuk Sreenivanasa Rao on 6 March, 2000
In State of A.P. v. Pituhuk Sreeinvanasa
Rao [(2000) 9 SCC 537 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 642] this
Court held that the exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction of the High Court in upsetting the
concurrent finding of the facts cannot be accepted
when it was without any reference to the evidence on
CRL.REV.P. 1005/2018 Page 7 of 11
record or to the finding entered by the trial court and
the appellate court regarding the evidence in view of the
fact that revisional jurisdiction is basically supervisory
in nature.