Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.53 seconds)Section 106 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Karnataka vs C K Dasegowda on 11 August, 2010
27. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of
State of Karnataka Vs. K.C. Narasegowda reported in ILR
2005 Karnataka 1822, it is contended that the benefit of the
said order should be extended to the appellants herein on the
ground of parity.
Sri. Girishchandra S/O Veerabhadrayya ... vs The State By Lokayuktha Police on 5 February, 2013
14. The question whether the registration of F.I.R
cannot precede the investigation or that the F.I.R could be
registered midst of the process of investigation came up for
consideration before the coordinate Bench of this High Court in
Criminal Petition No.15941 of 2012 c/w Criminal Petition
No.15852 of 2012 disposed on 5th February, 2012 (Sri
18
GIRISHCHANDRA vs. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
YADGIR).
Lalita Kumari vs Govt.Of U.P.& Ors on 12 November, 2013
16. In the instant case, no doubt PW.1 appears to have
failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 154 of
Cr.P.C, apparently for the reason that the nature of the
information of the offence required him to get into action before
the offenders could escape and the incriminating evidence was
concealed. Of course, I do not approve the procedure followed
by PW.1 especially in view of the law laid down by the
Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of
LALITHA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND
OTHERS reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein considering the
legislative intent of section 154 of Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down that any information disclosing of a
cognizable offence is laid before the officer in charge of a
Police Station, satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of
20
the Code, such Police Officer has no other option except to enter
the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say to
register the case on the basis of such information. In the
instant case, PW.1 having acted in accordance with section 157
of Cr.P.C. and no prejudice or failure of justice having been
made out and moreover, there being no breach of any
mandatory requirements of law or jurisdiction in registering
the offence or in conducting the investigation, in my view, the
irregularities pointed out by the defence do not militate against
the case of prosecution in any manner nor do they vitiate
the trial and the consequent conviction of the accused.
Resultantly, the contention urged in this regard is rejected.
Point No.2 :-
M. Mammutti vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 1979
Appreciating similar contention, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
M. Mammutti vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1980 SCC
(Cri) 170 has observed thus:-
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 154 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Mohan Lal vs The State Of Punjab on 16 August, 2018
In support of this
argument, the learned counsel have placed reliance on the
recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Mohan
Lal vs. The State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal
No.1880/2011, disposed of on 16.08.2018, wherein it is
held that :-