Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (1.13 seconds)
Govind Sakharam Ubhe vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 June, 2009 cites

State Of Bihar vs Ramesh Singh on 2 August, 1977

As stated by the Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh's case, the court has not to examine, at this stage, whether the case will end in conviction or not. We have not conducted a roving enquiry which is prohibited by law. But, in the light of Muniswamy's case, we have considered whether material on record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can be reasonably be possible. We are of the prima facie, opinion that statements of Mr. `X' and Mr. `Y' lead to such a conclusion. At the cost of repetition, we must state that the appellant's intimacy with the son of Guru Satam, his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:38:32 ::: AJN 48 phoning the son and relative of Guru Satam for settling the amount of extortion, his being present when settlement talks were going on, his being present when money was to be handed over and his accepting the money and handing it over to Guru Satam's son and the fact that Mr. `X' stopped receiving threats from that date, are sufficient to prima facie indicate the appellant's complicity. This is certainly not a case for discharge. It is not disputed before us that the fact that the appellant was released on bail has no relevance to the question whether he could be discharged or not because considerations for bail and considerations for discharge differ. In our opinion, learned Special Judge has rightly rejected the appellant's discharge application. The impugned order merits no interference.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 1190 - N L Untwalia - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors on 11 March, 1997

In State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj & Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2041, the Supreme Court again reiterated that at the stage of framing of the charge, the court has to consider the material with a view to finding out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:38:31 ::: AJN 18 likely to lead to a conviction.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 243 - Full Document

Supdt. & Remembrancer Of Legal Affairs ... vs Anil Kumar Bhunja & Ors on 23 August, 1979

In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Bhunja & Ors. AIR 1980 SC 52, the Supreme Court observed that the standard test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or Section 228. At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charges against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 673 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next