Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (4.96 seconds)
Smt. Chhaya Yuvaraj Dahiwal And Another vs State Of Maharashtra, Thorugh Acb, ... on 6 June, 2023 cites

Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State Of Goa on 19 August, 2019

In the case of Tarun Jit Tejpal (supra), it is held that at the time of consideration of the application for discharge, the Court cannot act as a mouth piece of the prosecution or act as a post office and may sift evidence in order to find out whether or not the allegations made are groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is held that at the stage of consideration of application for discharge, the Court has to proceed with an 5 (2020) 17 SCC 556 6 (1990) 4 SCC 76 7 (2010) 9 SCC 368 ::: Uploaded on - 06/06/2023 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2023 00:15:16 ::: revn.22.2014 judge.odt 44 assumption that the materials brought on record by prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offences. At this stage, the Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that materials would not warrant a conviction. It is held that what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting accused has been made out. It is further held that the law does not permit a mini trial at the stage of deciding the discharge application or at the time of framing of charge.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 64 - M R Shah - Full Document

Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi ... vs Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijje And Ors. Etc. ... on 7 August, 1990

In the context of the above factual position it would be profitable to make useful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another5; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others6 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation7, wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to analyze all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and acceptability of the evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 501 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

In the context of the above factual position it would be profitable to make useful reference to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another5; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others6 and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation7, wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to analyze all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and acceptability of the evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 657 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next