Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.24 seconds)Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Supdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs ... vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors on 23 August, 1979
24. Again in Prem Sharma @ Shiv Prasad Mishra Vs. Shivprakash
Mishra, ILR [2013] M.P. 2029, the Court referred the Supdt. &
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal, v. Anil Kumar Bhunja and
others, AIR 1980 SC 52, and Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v.
Jitendr Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962 and said that according
to the provisions of Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., it is for the Trial Court to
consider the material available on record with the object that if it is not
rebutted, then whether the accused can be convicted for a particular offence or
not. By considering such material, if the accused is convicted for that offence,
then charge for that offence shall be framed.
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi ... vs Jitendra Bhimaraj Bijje And Ors. Etc. ... on 7 August, 1990
12. Again in Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate v. Jitendra
Bhimraj Bijja and others, AIR 1990 SC 1962, the court said that it seems
well settled that at the Ss.227-228 stage i.e., stage of framing the charge, the
Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a
view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value
disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence.
The Court may for this limited purpose sift the evidence as it cannot be
expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as
gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities
of the case.
State Of Maharashtra Etc. Etc vs Som Nath Thapa, Etc. Etc on 12 April, 1996
14. Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v.
Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744 = 1996 AIR SCW 1977 said that at the
stage of framing the charge there must exist ground for presuming that
accused has committed the offence. The court said that word "presume"
means probable consequence. If there is ground for presuming that the
accused has committed the offence, a Court can justifiably say that a prima
facie case against him exists, and so, frame charge against him for committing
that offence. In Black's Law Dictionary word 'presume' has been defined to
mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". Legal Dictionary has
quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which "A presumption
is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct
testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged." The aforesaid shows that if on the
basis of materials on record, a Court could come to the conclusion that
commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of
charge exists.
State Of Maharashtra vs Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors on 11 March, 1997
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj and
others, AIR 1997 S.C. 2041 = 1997 AIR SCW 1833 = [1997]4 SCC 393, the
Apex court said that High Court cannot seek independent corroboration at
stage of framing of charge and quash charge and discharge accused. At the
state of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a
view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has
committed the offence or that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding
against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not
likely to lead to a conviction.
Arun Vyas & Anr vs Anita Vyas on 14 May, 1999
16. Again in Arun Vyas and another v. Anita Vyas, AIR 1999 SC 2071 =
1999 AIR SCW 1793, the Apex court observed that Section 239 has to be read
along with S. 240 Cr. P. C. If the Magistrate finds that there is prima facie
evidence or the material against the accused in support of the charge
(allegations) he may frame charge in accordance with S. 240 Cr. P. C. But if
he finds that the charge (the allegations or imputations) made against the
accused do not make out a prima facie case and do not furnish basis for
framing charge, it will be a case of charge being groundless, so he has no
option but to discharge the accused. Where the Magistrate finds that taking
cognizance of the offence itself was contrary to any provision of law, like S.
468 Cr. P. C., the complaint being barred by limitation, so he cannot frame the
charge, he has to discharge the accused.
State Of M.P vs S.B. Johari & Others on 17 January, 2000
17. Further in the case of State of M.P. v. S. B. Johari and others, AIR
2000 SC 665 = 2000 AIR SCW 189 = 2000 CRI.L.J. 944, court also said that
quashment of charge by appreciating materials produced by prosecution at the
stage of framing of charge is not justified. At stage of framing charge, Court is
not required to marshal materials on record but only has to prima facie
consider whether there is sufficient materials against accused. Court
observed :-
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mohanlal Soni on 19 July, 2000
In State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338 the court observed
that the crystallized judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the
court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused. The court is not required to appreciate
evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for
convicting the accused.
Kanti Bhadra Shah And Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 5 January, 2000
In Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, 2000
(1) SCC 722 the Court said if the trial court decides to frame a charge, there is
no legal requirement that he should pass an order specifying the reasons as to
why he opts to do so. Framing of charge itself is prima facie order that the trial
judge has formed the opinion, upon consideration of the police report and
other documents and after hearing both sides, that there is ground for
presuming that the accused has committed the offence concerned.