Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.23 seconds)
Sajjan Singh, Dule Singh And Another vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 September, 1998 cites

Babu And 3 Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 19 January, 1965

In Babu v. State of U.P. (AIR 1965 SC 1467) it has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court that where the third Judge did not consider it necessary to decide a particular point on which there had been difference of opinion between the two Judges, but simply indicated that if at all it was necessary for him to come to a decision on the point, he agreed with all that had been said about by one of the two Judges, such decision was in conformity with law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 14 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs State Of Gujarat on 6 May, 1997

In Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat (1997 (7) SCC 156 ) the appellant was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. On an appeal by the appellant the Division was divided. One Judge was for allowing the appeal the other for dismissing the same. When the matter was referred to the third Judge under Section 392 of the Code he agreed that appeal be dismissed and upheld the conviction of the appellant. When the matter came to this Court an argument was raised that in view of finding of one of the members of the Division Bench that the appellant was entitled to acquittal, such view in favour of acquittal, as a rule of prudence, should be accepted by he third Judge hearing the appeal under Section 392 of the Code. This court considered the scope and ambit of Section 392 and the question of acceptance of the view in favour of acquittal, as rule of prudence or on the score of judicial etiquette by the third Judge. This Court referred to all the earlier decisions of this Court as were rendered under Section 429 of the old Code and Section 392 of the present Code and held as under : -
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 118 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next