Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.17 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Nathu Lal vs State Of U.P. on 25 August, 1988
"It would have been just fair and proper to decide both
the cases together by the same court in view of the
guidelines devised by this Court in Nathilal's case
(supra). The cross -cases should be tried together by
the same court irrespective of the nature of the
offence involved. The rational behind this is to avoid
the conflicting judgments over the same incident
because if cross cses are allowed to be tried by two
courts separately there is likelihood of conflicting
judgments."
Krishna Pannadi vs Emperor on 16 October, 1929
5. A Division Bench of the Madras High Court in
Re Goriparthi Krishtamma 1929 Madras weekly notes 881,
(Waller and Cornish, JJ) had occasion to consider 'case and
counter case' and they made a suggestion that "a case and
Crl.R.P. No.872/2003 6
counter case arising out of the same affair should always,
if practicable, be tried by the same court and each party
would represent themselves as having been the innocent
victims of the aggression of the other." Considering the
complication and difficulty, a single Judge of the Madras
High Court in Krisha Pannadi V. Emperor [AIR 1930 Madras
190] [justice Jackson] emphasised the legislature to
provide a mechanism as a statutory provision for trial of
both cases by the same court. Learned Judge said
thus:"There is no clear law as regards the procedure in
counter cases, a defect which the legislature ought to
remedy. It is a generally recognized rule that such cases
should be tried in quick succession by the same Judge, who
should not pronounce judgment till the hearing of both
cases is finished." Even after several years there is no
legislative response to this problem as yet.
Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rosily Augustine vs State Of Kerala on 3 October, 1994
7. This Court in Augustine v. State [1982 KLT 351]
settled the law with regard to the case and counter case
Crl.R.P. No.872/2003 9
and the meaning and importance of the procedure adopted
in a criminal trial and held as follows:
Sudhir & Ors. Etc. vs State Of M.P. Etc. on 2 February, 2001
In this
Crl.R.P. No.872/2003 7
backdrop, Apex Court had the occasion to advert the
position in Sudhir v State (2001) 2 SCC 688 as follows: "We
are unable to understand why the legislature is still
parrying to incorporate such a salubrious practice as a
statutory requirement in the Code." Despite the above
clear direction of the Apex court, no progress was made in
this regard.
1