Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.62 seconds)
Dr. Ravichandran B.R. S/O- Lt. B. ... vs The Union Of India Represented By The ... on 27 July, 2022
cites
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 117 in The Border Security Force Act, 1968 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 220 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Queen-Emprress vs Juala Prasad on 22 November, 1884
(xii) NASIB SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND
ANOTHER : (2022) 2 SCC 89
[18] Relying on the Allahabad High Court's decision
in the case of Queen Emprress Vs Juala Prasad (supra),
counsel has contended that for every distinct offence of
which any person is accused there shall be a separate
charge, and every such charge shall be tried separately.
Mohan Baitha And Ors. vs State Of Bihar And Anr. on 21 March, 2001
"43. It is true that law recognises common
trial or a common FIR being registered for
one series of acts so connected together as
to form the same transaction as
contemplated under Section 220 of the
Code. There cannot be any straitjacket
formula, but this question has to be
answered on the facts of each case. This
Court in Mohan Baitha v. State of Bihar (SCC
pp. 354-55, para 4) held that the
expression "same transaction" from its very
nature is incapable of exact definition. It is
not intended to be interpreted in any
artificial or technical sense. Common sense
in the ordinary use of language must decide
whether or not in the very facts of a case, it
can be held to be one transaction.