Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Kajad on 6 September, 2001
12. This Court is of the considered view that submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner basing on the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kajad (Supra) has the force of law.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 60 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hari Singh Mann vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors on 1 November, 2000
9. It has further to be noted that the factum of the rejection of his earlier bail application bearing Misc. Case No. 2052 of 2000 on 05.06.2000 has not been denied by the respondent. It is true that successive bail applications are permissible under the changed circumstances. but without the change in the circumstances the second application would be deemed to be seeking review of the earlier judgment which is not permissible under criminal law as has been held by this Court in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Anr. and various other judgments.
Babua @ Tazmul Hossain vs The State Of Orissa on 30 January, 2001
7. From bare perusal of Section 37 of the NDPS Act it is clear that the concerned Court can only grant bail on the application filed by the accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), 29 and 60 of the NDPS Act, 1995 when there is no reasonable ground for pleading that he is guilty of the concerned offence and that, he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Apex Court in Babua @ Tazmul Hossain v. The State of Orissa: 2001(1) Supreme 411 had discussed the circumstances under which the bail application under Section 37(1)(b) could be entertained.
Dr. P. Nalla Thamby Thera vs Union Of India And Others on 28 October, 1983
9. The Apex Court had also discussed the circumstances under which the revisional power of the Court under Section 397, 401 and 482, Cr. P.C. are to be exercised in Dr. P. Nulla Thampy Thera v. Union of India and Ors. . The scope of revisionsal jurisdiction under Section 401 is to confer upon the superior Court- a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction- in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from musconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted, on the one hand, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The controlling power of the High Court is discretionary and it must be exercise in the interest of justice with regard to all facts and circumstances of each particular case. And also under Section 379 of the Cr. P.C. the High Court possesses the general power of superintendence over the actions of Courts subordinate to it which discretionary power when administered on administration side, is known as the power of superintendence and on the judicial side as the power or revision. In exercise of the discretionary powers conferred on the High Court under the provisions of this section, the High Court can, at any stage, on its won motion, if it so desires and certainly when illegalities and irregularities resulting in injustice are brought to its notice, call for the records and examine them.
Senaram Das Son Of Late Sasai Das vs Kashiram Das Son Of Late Saruram Das on 2 March, 1995
10. This Court in Senaram Das and Ors. v. Kashiram Das : 1995 (2) GLT423 held that revisional Court may in an appropriate case exercise the power available to a Court of appeal.
1