Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (0.48 seconds)Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corp on 5 January, 2010
11. The Court, while ordering that both the cases would be clubbed in
respect of this that occurrence has practically merged them which it had no
jurisdiction to do. Since it is clear from the language of S. 21, Cr.P.C.
that both the cases exist side by side and continue to have their specific
identities and the Court has no jurisdiction to merge them it is always
better to avoid terms like 'clubbing' and to use the language of the Code
itself, that is to say 'trying together'. Since the court below has committed
a gross error which has affected the interest of justice in both the cases,
the revision petition has to be allowed and the trial court while dealing
with the matter should follow the guidelines indicated by the Supreme Court
in Harjinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1985 SCC (Cri) 93 : (1986 Cri LJ 831)
already quoted.
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Harjinder Singh vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 21 December, 1984
24. The facts of the case also warrant that the two trials should be
conducted by the same Presiding Officer in order to avoid conflict of
decisions. As was observed in Harjinder Singh's case (supra) clubbing and
consolidating the two cases, one on a police challan and the other on a
complaint, if the prosecution versions in the two cases are materially
different, contradictory and mutually exclusive, should not be consolidated
but should be tried together with the evidence in the two cases being
recorded separately, so that both the cases could be disposed of
simultaneously.