Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 37 (0.32 seconds)Section 190 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Church Of South Indian Trust ... vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 20 January, 1972
2. A synopsis of the relevant facts could be given thus. In relation to an incident that took place at 9 p.m. on 12-11-1983 a case was registered, investigated and charge-sheeted against the third respondent for offences punishable Under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 89(a) and (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The accused surrendered before Court on 21-11-1983 and he was enlarged on bail. The case is one triable by the Magistrate as a summons case. It is said that investigation was completed within the crucial period on 24-4-1984, but filing the charge-sheet before Court on 4-6-1984 alone was beyond the period provided Under Section 167(5). After taking cognizance the accused filed a petition to drop the proceedings. He placed reliance pn Section 167(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the decision in David's case 1984 Ker LT 849. The Magistrate accepted the contention and dropped the proceedings by order dated 19-12-1984. CW. 2, the injured, has come up in revision. Respondents 1 and 2 are the State and the Sub Inspector, who charge-sheeted the case. We had the advantage of hearing counsel on either side and the Director of Public Prosecutions elaborately.
Section 193 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 190 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hussainara Khatoon & Ors vs Home Secretary, State Of Bihar, Govt. Of ... on 12 February, 1979
In Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna , even though the question did not directly come up for consideration, in cases of undertrial prisoners against whom investigation has not been completed within six months and sanction from the Magistrate was not obtained Under Section 167(5), the Government was only directed by the Supreme Court that unless necessary orders are obtained from the Magistrate within one month they shall be released. That means the Supreme Court has not considered investigation as having been automatically terminated by expiry of six months. Permission granted to the Government to move the Magistrate after the expiry of six months means the Supreme Court accepted the position that the Magistrate is competent to extend the time even after the expiry of six months.
Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
H. N. Rishbud And Inder Singh vs The State Of Delhi(And Connected ... on 14 December, 1954
(See the earliest decision on the point in H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi . Any defect relating to investigation under Chapter XII cannot project under Chapter XIV or the other Chapters dealing with inquiries or trials. Investigation involves collection of evidence and placing the accused for trial on the basis of the materials if they make out commission of offence or offences. Illegality in the matter of collection of such materials, unless it resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, cannot stand in the way of cognizance of the offence being taken and the offender being tried. The question is not whether in investigating the offence the police disregarded any legal provisions, but whether ihe accused has been prejudiced by the disregard in his defence at the trial. It is necessary for the accused to throw reasonable doubt that the prosecution evidence is such that it was manipulated or shaped by reason of the illegality or irregularity in investigation or that by reason of the said illegality or irregularity he was prevented from putting forward his defence or adducing evidence. There must be sufficient nexus either established or probabilised between the illegality or irregularity in investigation and the prejudice or miscarriage of justice.
The State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Bhagwant Kishore Joshi on 17 April, 1963
It was so held in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi .