Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.26 seconds)
Amar Nath vs State And Ors. on 21 April, 2007 cites

Joginder Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 16 November, 1978

20. The argument of learned Counsel for petitioner that no challan was presented against him so he could not be arrayed as a accused is devoid of force. Apex Court in a case titled Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 1979 SCC Vol 1 P. 345 held that even though no chargesheet is presented against the accused, he could be arrayed as an accused.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 507 - V D Tulzapurkar - Full Document

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982

6. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the High Court was justified in passing the impugned order and in support of his contention, he was relied upon the decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohtagi and Ors. . In our view, there is no substance in his contention. In that case also, after considering Section 319 Cr.P.C, this Court held that the said provision gives ample power to any court to take cognizance and add any person not being an accused before it and try him along with other accused, if there appears during the trial sufficient evidence indicating his involvement in the offence. The court also observed that this power is really an extra ordinary power and should be used very sparingly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 852 - S M Ali - Full Document

Kishun Singh And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 11 January, 1993

In Kishun Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar , this Court considered a case where an FIR was lodged naming 20 persons including the two appellants as assailants of the deceased who died in the occurrence. After investigation, police submitted its report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. showing 18 persons other than the two appellants as offenders. The magistrate committed those 18 persons named in the report to the Court of Session under Section 209 Cr. P. C. to stand trial. Before Sessions Court, an application under Section 319 of the Code was filed praying that remaining two accused be summoned and arraigned as accused. The Sessions Court impleaded them as co-accused. That order was finally challenged before this Court and the Court dismissed the appeal by holding that Section 319 can be invoked both by the court having original jurisdiction as well as the court to which the case has been committed or transferred for trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 274 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

State vs Mohd. Zaman And Ors. on 1 August, 1980

9. Section 193 read with Section 351 of the Code was subject matter of discussion in a case titled as State v. Mohammad Zaman and Ors. reported in KLJ 1981, P. 221 and their Lordships have held that trial court-Sessions Court has powers to array any person as an accused, if during trial evidence recorded indicate prima facie involvement of that person. It is profitable to reproduce Para 5 of that judgement herein:
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1