Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.26 seconds)Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel vs Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors on 2 February, 2017
12. The Supreme Court has specifically held that the case of Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel Vs. Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel, (2017) 4 SCC 177, Athul Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2018) 14 SCC 298 and Bikash Ranjan Rout vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 5 SCC 542 does not lay down the correct law.
Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors on 13 December, 2012
14. The other specific judgment of the Supreme Court considering the question of power of ''re-investigation' is the case of Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak & otheres, 2012 LawSuit(SC) 845 wherein the Supreme Court specifically dealt with the question of powers of a Magistrate for ''further investigation' and ''re-investigation' and held as under:
Babubhai vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 26 August, 2010
18. Next question that comes up for consideration of this Court is whether the empowered Magistrate has the jurisdiction to direct ''further investigation' or ''fresh investigation'. As far as the latter is concerned, the law declared by this Court consistently is that the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct ''fresh' or ''de novo' investigation. However, once the report is filed, the Magistrate has jurisdiction to accept the report or reject the same right at the threshold. Even after accepting the report, it has the jurisdiction to discharge the accused or frame the charge and put him to trial. But there are no provisions in the Code which empower the Magistrate to disturb the status of an accused pending investigation or when report is, filed to wipe out the report and its effects in law. Reference in this regard can be made to K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala [(1998) 5 SCC 223]; Ramachandran v. R. Udhayakumar [(2008) 5 SCC 413], Nirmal Singh Kahlon v State of Punjab & Ors. [(2009) 1 SCC 441]; Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 6 SCC 332]; and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [(2010) 12 SCC 254].
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 19 April, 2010
In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2010) 6 SCC 1], the Court stated that it is not only the responsibility of the investigating agency, but also that of the courts to ensure that investigation is fair and does not in any way hamper the freedom of an individual except in accordance with law. An equally enforceable canon of the criminal law is that high responsibility lies upon the investigating agency not to conduct an investigation in a tainted or unfair manner. The investigation should not prima facie be indicative of a biased mind and every effort should be made to bring the guilty to law as nobody stands above law de hors his position and influence in the society. The maxim contra veritatem lex nunquam aliquid permittit applies to exercise of powers by the courts while granting approval or declining to accept the report.
Gudalure M.J. Cherian And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 9 December, 1991
In the case of Gudalure M.J. Cherian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [(1992) 1 SCC 397], this Court stated the principle that in cases where charge-sheets have been filed after completion of investigation and request is made belatedly to reopen the investigation, such investigation being entrusted to a specialized agency would normally be declined by the court of competent jurisdiction but nevertheless in a given situation to do justice between the parties and to instil confidence in public mind, it may become necessary to pass such orders.