Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.37 seconds)Section 174 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Abdul Rahim vs King-Emperor on 26 February, 1946
In adjudging the question of prejudice the fact that the absence of a
charge, or a substantial mistake in it, is a serious lacuna will naturally
operate to the benefit of the accused and if there is any reasonable and
substantial doubt about whether he was, or was reasonably likely to have
been, misled in the circumstances of any particular case, he is as much
entitled to the benefit of it here as elsewhere; but if, on a careful
consideration of all the facts, prejudice, or a reasonable and substantial
likelihood of it, is not disclosed the conviction must stand;also it will
always be material to consider whether objection to the nature of the
charge, or a total want of one, was taken at an early stage.If it was not,
and particularly where the accused is defended by counsel [Atta
Mohammad v. King Emperor [Atta Mohammad v. King Emperor, 1929 SCC
OnLine PC 110 : (1929-30) 57 IA 71 at p. 76 : (1930) 31 LW 306] at p. 74] it
may in a given case be proper to conclude that the accused was
satisfied and knew just what he was being tried for and knew what was
being alleged against him and wanted no further particulars, provided
it is always borne in mind that: (Abdul Rahman case [Abdul
Rahman v. King Emperor, 1926 SCC OnLine PC 65 : (1926-27) 54 IA 96 at
p. 109] , SCC OnLine PC)
14
"... no serious defect in the mode of conducting a criminal trial can be
justified or cured by the consent of the advocate of the accused."
But these are matters of fact which will be special to each different
case and no conclusion on these questions of fact in any one case can
ever be regarded as a precedent or a guide for a conclusion of fact in
another, because the facts can never be alike in any two cases "however"
alike they may seem. There is no such thing as a judicial precedent on facts
though counsel, and even Judges, are sometimes prone to argue and to act
as if there were.
Mamfru Chowdhury And Ors. vs Emperor on 3 October, 1923
The Mamfru Chowdhury case (supra),
therefore, cannot come to the aid of the appellant.