Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.32 seconds)Section 223 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Arivazhagan vs State, Represented By Inspector Of ... on 8 March, 2000
9. So far as examination of defence witnesses is concerned, the petitioner, as stated above, wanted to examine the officers of the CBI and some others as defence witnesses. It has not been made clear as to why they should be examined and how the petitioner will be prejudiced if they are not examined as defence witnesses. The provisions of Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended for Section 22 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Arivazhagan v. State, . That was a case in which the accused were tried by Special Court for facing a charge for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said case, the prosecution examined a large number of witnesses by summoning as many as 41 persons. When the case reached the stage, as envisaged in Section 243(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused persons submitted a list of 267 witnesses for defence. The Special Judge made scrutiny of the list and dissected the names into four divisions.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 191 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Bihar & Anr vs Ranchi Zila Samta Party & Anr on 19 March, 1996
At this stage, it is pertinent to mention that in pursuance of an order, passed in Public Interest Litigation, preferred by one Sushil Kumar Modi, a Division Bench of Patna High Court vide its judgment, reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 561 : 1996 (2) East Cr C (NOC) 2, having noticed a large scale of financial irregularities in Animal Husbandry Department of Govt of Bihar, directed the CBI to take up investigation to cover the period from 1977-78 to 1995-96 and to complete the investigation. The investigation of the State Police, in certain cases which were already instituted, were suspended and the State Government was directed to provide necessary facilities to the CBI in such investigations. The aforesaid judgment of Patna High Court was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Ranchi Zila Samta Party, reported in 1996 (1) PLJR 97 (SC). While affirming the aforesaid judgment of Patna High Court, the Supreme Court directed that the investigation be transferred to the CBI from the State and then to follow up of the matter expeditiously after the investigation is complete by the CBI. By the order said of the Court, a Monitoring Bench was also constituted.