Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)State Of A.P vs S. Narasimha Kumar & Ors on 13 July, 2006
5. The counsel for the appellants submitted that
the 1st appellant is no more, in view of the dictum laid
down in the decision reported in State of Andra
Pradesh v Narasimha Kumar [2006 (3) KLT 505],
where the apex court has held that, if fine forms part of
the sentence, death of the accused will not end in
abatement of the appeal, in view of the proviso to Section
394 of the Code the appeal will abate on the death of the
appellant as against him, so it was decided to hear the
matter on merit as against him also.
Ravi vs State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2009
In the decision reported in Ravi v State of
Kerala and Another [2011 (3) KHC 121], the Division
Bench of this court has held that mere delay in producing
the article is not sufficient to disbelieve the case of the
prosecution, if it is properly explained. If the delay is
explained, then court can ignore the delay and accept the
article as article that has been seized and rely on the
same. But if the delay is inordinate and no explanation
forthcoming from the side of the prosecution for the delay
in producing the same, then that benefit must be given to
the accused as that will break the link between the
accused and the contraband article so as to come to the
conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused were found to be in
Crl. Appeal No.1742 OF 2003 22
possession of the contraband articles as claimed by the
prosecution and they are entitled to get aquittal of that
charge under that ground.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1