Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (2.98 seconds)
Anoop Singh Son Of Gulab Singh vs State Of U.P. And Shri Saroj Kumar Singh ... on 10 August, 2007 cites

Mohd. Shafi vs Mohd. Rafiq & Anr on 9 April, 2007

4. Secondly it was (sic) argued that there was no prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the offence and that the said summoning order under Section 319 Cr. P.C. was against the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Palanisamy Gounder and Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2005) 12 SCC, 327 and Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. and the Court ought to have recorded the finding that there was no prospect of the applicant's conviction, and refuse to have summoned the applicant in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr PC I find no merit in this contention liaised by the learned Counsel for the applicant This question is no more res integra that there was no fetter on the court in summoning a person as an accused only on the basis of (sic) examination-in-chief and it was not imperatives that the witness must be cross-examined before an accused is summoned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 222 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Rakesh And Another vs State Of Haryana on 25 July, 2001

In Rakesh v. State of Haryana AIR 2001 SC, 2521, it was held that once the Sessions court records the statement of a witness, that could be prima facie material, which would enable the Sessions court to decide whether to exercise powers under Section 319(1) Cr. P.C. or not. The accused would have an opportunity to cross examine and question of the veracity and truthfulness of the witness at the appropriate stage in the trial, but that should provide no reason for restraining an order summoning an accused on the oasis of the examination-in-chief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Govindasamy, Palaniswamy, ... vs State By Inspector Of Police on 23 October, 2003

4. Secondly it was (sic) argued that there was no prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the offence and that the said summoning order under Section 319 Cr. P.C. was against the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Palanisamy Gounder and Anr. v. State represented by Inspector of Police reported in (2005) 12 SCC, 327 and Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq and Anr. and the Court ought to have recorded the finding that there was no prospect of the applicant's conviction, and refuse to have summoned the applicant in exercise of powers under Section 319 Cr PC I find no merit in this contention liaised by the learned Counsel for the applicant This question is no more res integra that there was no fetter on the court in summoning a person as an accused only on the basis of (sic) examination-in-chief and it was not imperatives that the witness must be cross-examined before an accused is summoned.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 49 - T V Masilamani - Full Document
1