Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 40 (0.37 seconds)
Abhishek Singh @ Sarvan Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Minis. Of ... on 24 September, 2024 cites

Vinay Tyagi vs Irshad Ali @ Deepak & Ors on 13 December, 2012

"42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 407, Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid- way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 658 - S Kumar - Full Document

State Of Punjab vs Cbi & Ors on 2 September, 2011

8. Based upon the aforesaid facts, particularly, the facts pleaded in the affidavit extracted hereinabove as also the judgment(s) passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of (1) Shivam Vs. State of U.P. 2021 (3) JIC 31 (All), (2) Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 254, (3) Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali (2013) 5 SCC 762, (4) Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah Vs. CBI (2013) 6 SCC 348, (5) Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Principal Secretary (2014) 2 SCC 532, (6) Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat (2014) 4 SCC 626, (7) Rajiv Singh Vs. State of Bihar (2015) 16 SCC 369, (8) Nirmal Singh Kahlon Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 1 SCC 441, (9) Azija Begum Vs. State of Maharastra (2012) 3 SCC 126-128, (10) State of Punjab Vs. C.B.I. (2011) 9 SCC 182 (11) Willie (William) Slaney Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh 1956 AIR SC 116, (12) Surajit Sarkar Vs. State of West Bengal (2013) 2 SCC 146, (13) Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22, (14) Sasi Thomas Vs. State (2006) 12 SCC 421, (15) Youth Bar Association of India Vs. Union of India (2016) 9 SCC 473, (16) Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409, (17) Rajiv Thapar & others Vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, (18) Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration & Another (1996) 9 SCC 766 (19) Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh & Ors, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.13346/2020, (20) Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Others Vs. State of Gujarat & Another (2019) 17 SCC 1, (21) Anant Thanur Karmuse Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2023) 5 SCC 802, (22) Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat & others (2004) 5 SCC 347, (23) Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak & Others (2013) 5 SCC 762, (24) Bharati Tamang Vs. Union Of India & others (2013) 15 SCC 578, (25) Dharam Pal Vs. State of Harayana & others (2016) 4 SCC 160 (26) Anuj Chaudhary Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (2013) 6 SCC 384, (27) State of Punjab Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation & others (2011) 9 SCC 182, (28) Sasi Thomas Vs. State & others (2006) 12 SCC 421, (29) Kewal Krishan Vs. Union Territory of J&K (High Court of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh at Jammu) CRM (M) No.157/2023 and (30) Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & Others (2004) 13 SCC 292, learned counsel for the applicant advanced his submissions and made prayer to interfere in the order impugned and direct the I.O. to file the charge sheet after further investigation, particularly, after taking note of the CCTV footage pertaining to applicant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 82 - A K Patnaik - Full Document

Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others on 7 December, 2007

"42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, Samaj Parivartan Samudaya v. State of Karnataka, (2012) 7 SCC 407, Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762, and Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92; Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid- way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 8229 - M Katju - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next