Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.25 seconds)Section 67 in The Information Technology Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Tarun Jit Tejpal vs The State Of Goa on 19 August, 2019
In this context, a
useful reference can be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another
[(2020) 17 SCC 556] ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi,
Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others [(1990) 4 SCC
76] and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2010)
9 SCC 368], wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence
at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge
application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to
analyse all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and
acceptability of the evidence.
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi ... vs Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijje And Ors. Etc. ... on 7 August, 1990
In this context, a
useful reference can be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the cases of Tarun Jit Tejpal Vs. State of Goa and Another
[(2020) 17 SCC 556] ; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi,
Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Others [(1990) 4 SCC
76] and Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2010)
9 SCC 368], wherein it has been held that appreciation of evidence
at the time of framing of the charge or while considering discharge
application, is not permissible. The Court is not permitted to
analyse all the material touching the pros and cons, reliability and
acceptability of the evidence.
Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010
-9- 4.WP.786.2022. Judgment.odt
groundless so as to pass an order of discharge. It is held that at the
stage of consideration of application for discharge, the Court has to
proceed with an assumption that the materials brought on record
by prosecution are true and evaluate the said materials and
documents with a view to find out whether the facts emerging
therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the
ingredients constituting the alleged offences. At this stage, the
Court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that
materials would not warrant a conviction. It is held that what
needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming
that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for
convicting accused has been made out. It is further held that the
law does not permit a mini trial at the stage of deciding the
discharge application or at the time of framing of charge.
15] It is equally necessary to consider the decisions relied
upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner-accused to cull out
the law laid down in the decisions.
Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Joseph Salvaraj A vs State Of Gujarat & Ors on 4 July, 2011
Perusal of the decisions in the
cases of Joseph Salvaraj A. (supra) ; Sharat Babu Digumarti (supa)
and Ravari Kirankumar (supra), would show that in these decisions
the issue of discharge, the nature of the material and the scope of
enquiry at the stage of framing of charge or deciding the discharge