Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)

Sayeeda Farhana Shamim vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 16 May, 2008

6. Per contra, Mrs. Ruby Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for the opposite party-State submits that there is no illegality in the criminal 4 revision order and if no prejudice is caused to the petitioners, there is no point of interference with the criminal revision order. She relied upon paragraphs 6 and 8 of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sayeed Farhana Shamim (supra). On these grounds, she submits that this petition is fit to be dismissed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 12 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Sunil Mehta & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 20 February, 2013

Section 244 Cr.P.C. was the subject matter in the case of Sunil Mehta & another v. State of Gujarat & another , reported in (2013) 9 SCC 209 and while considering Sections 244, 245 and 246 Cr.P.C., the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the difference lies in the fact that while the former is a process that is conducted in the absence of the accused, the latter is undertaken in his presence with an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the prosecution. Paragraph 12 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 49 - T S Thakur - Full Document
1