Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 48 (0.32 seconds)Section 228 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs L. Muniswamy & Ors on 3 March, 1977
Therefore, the learned trial Court should have
relied on the judgment of State of Karnataka vs.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:46:15 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004311] (6 of 18) [CRLR-1513/2022]
L. Munishwamy and Ors. (supra) which is a judgment of Larger
Bench and should not have relied on a judgment of State of
Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (supra).
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ashok Kumar Kashyap on 13 April, 2021
Therefore, the learned trial Court should have
relied on the judgment of State of Karnataka vs.
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:46:15 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004311] (6 of 18) [CRLR-1513/2022]
L. Munishwamy and Ors. (supra) which is a judgment of Larger
Bench and should not have relied on a judgment of State of
Rajasthan vs. Ashok Kumar Kashyap (supra).
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Central Bureau Of Investigation (Cbi) vs Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi @ T.H. ... on 8 October, 2021
31. It has also been an important argument on behalf of the
petitioner that, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vs.
Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi, reported in AIR 2021 SC
5041, in cases where FIR itself discloses a cognizable offence,
then in that circumstance conducting of a preliminary enquiry is
not mandatory. The above cited judgment of the Hon'ble apex
court only stipulates that conducting of a preliminary enquiry
before registration of FIR is not mandatory. It nowhere stipulates
that if an enquiry has been conducted, it would vitiate the
investigation.
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
In Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
[(2002) 2 SCC 135] (AIR 2000 SC 2583) this Court
while dealing with the provisions of Sections 227 and
228 CrPC, placed a very heavy reliance on the earlier
judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla
Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4] : (AIR 1979 SC 366)
and held that while considering the question of
framing the charges, the court may weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out and whether the
materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained. In such an eventuality, the court
is justified in framing the charges and proceeding
with the trial. The court has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
court but the court should not make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh
evidence as if it is conducting a trial.
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002
In Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra
[(2002) 2 SCC 135] (AIR 2000 SC 2583) this Court
while dealing with the provisions of Sections 227 and
228 CrPC, placed a very heavy reliance on the earlier
judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla
Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4] : (AIR 1979 SC 366)
and held that while considering the question of
framing the charges, the court may weigh the
evidence for the limited purpose of finding out
whether or not a prima facie case against the
accused has been made out and whether the
materials placed before the court disclose grave
suspicion against the accused which has not been
properly explained. In such an eventuality, the court
is justified in framing the charges and proceeding
with the trial. The court has to consider the broad
probabilities of the case, the total effect of the
evidence and the documents produced before the
court but the court should not make a roving enquiry
into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh
evidence as if it is conducting a trial.