Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)
Vellaiammal vs Thirumal Asari And Ors. on 27 February, 1986 cites

K. Chinnaswamy Reddy vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 25 July, 1962

2. In our view the High Court has given adequate reasons for interfering with the acquittal and ordering a retrial of the appellants. We may add that the High Court also expressed the view that the instances mentioned by this Court in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A.P. as justifying interference with orders of acquittal in the exercise of revisional powers were illustrative and not exhaustive. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court and we only wish to say that the criminal justice system does not admit of "pigeon-holing". Life and the law do not fall neatly into slots. When a court starts laying down rules enumerated (1), (2), (3), (4) or (a), (b), (c), (d), it is arranging for itself traps and pitfalls. Categories, classifications and compartments, which statute does not mention, all tend to make law 'less flexible, less sensible and less just'."
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 678 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

Mahendra Pratap Singh vs Sarju Singh & Anr on 20 November, 1967

Following and amplifying the above observations, it has been held in Mahendra Pratab Singh v. Sarju Singh , that although the list of grounds given in the said decision is not exhaustive of all the circumstances in which the High Court may interfere with an acquittal in revision, it is obvious that the defect in the judgment under revision must be analogous to those actually indicated by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 373 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Kalu Ahir And Others vs Ramdeo Ram on 1 May, 1973

Then, the learned counsel cited Akalu Ahir v. Ramdeo Ram 1974 Mad LJ (Crl) 168 : (1973 Cri LJ 1404) wherein their Lordships of the Supreme Court, after having referred to all the leading decisions on this point including the above two decisions, have held that the power of revision conferred on a High Court by Section 439 read with Section 435, Criminal Procedure Code, is an extraordinary discretionary power vested in the superior Court to be exercised in aid of justice, in other words, to set right grave injustice, that the High Court, when approached by a private party for exercising its power of revision from an order of acquittal, should refrain from interfering except when there is a glaring legal defect of a serious nature, which has resulted in grave failure of justice, and that the power being discretionary, it has to be exercised judicially and not arbitrarily.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 267 - K K Mathew - Full Document

Satyendra Nath Dutta & Anr vs Ram Narain on 18 November, 1974

Next the learned counsel brought to my notice the decision in Sayuendra Nath v. Ram Narain for the proposition that where the judgment of the Sessions Judge did not suffer from any manifest illegality and interests of justice did not require the High Court to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, the setting aside of the acquittal and ordering a re-trial is a transgression of the narrow limits of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 439(4)."
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 201 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

D. Stephens vs Nosibolla on 2 March, 1951

In D. Stephens v. Nosibolla, , only two grounds are mentioned by this Court as entitling the High Court to set aside an acquittal in a revision and to order a retrial. They are that there must exist a manifest illegality in the judgment of the Court of Session ordering the acquittal or there must be a gross miscarriage of justice. In explaining these two propositions, this Court further states that the High Court is not entitled to interfere even if a wrong view of law is taken by the Court of Session or if even there is misappreciation of evidence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 398 - N C Aiyar - Full Document
1   2 Next