Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Balabhadra Dash And Anr. vs State Of Orissa And Ors. [Alongwith Crl. ... on 22 February, 1991 cites

State Of Orissa vs Chandrika Mohapatra & Ors on 23 August, 1976

in case Public Prosecutor is inclined to consider that instruction is not beneficial to the society he ought to advise the State Government accordingly without fear even if it has the effect of termination of his appointment as Public Prosecutor. Where Public Prosecutor decides to file an application for consent after due consideration, such application should be self-contained. On such application being filed, Court is to consider whether consent is to be given. Principles of consideration by Court have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in A.I.R. 1977 S. C. 903 (Stats of Orissa v. Chandrika Mohapatra and others) where it has been observed that the Public Prosecutor is to make out some ground which would show that the prosecution is sought to be withdrawn because, inter alia, the prosecution may not be able to produce sufficient evidence to sustain the charge or that the prosecution does not appear to be well founded or that there are other circumstances clearly showing that the object of administration of justice would not be advanced or furthered by going on with the prosecution. Ultimately, guiding consideration always must be the interest of administration of justice and this is a touch-stone on which the question must be determined whether the prosecution should be allowed to be withdrawn.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 66 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960

5. Since all the accused persons pray for quashing cognizance in exercise bf inherent power Under Section 482, Cr.PC, I lake up those applications first. Inherent power is wide in nature and this provision in Cr.P.C. having been made to secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of Court, such power is to be exercised with great against. Wider would be the power, greater should be the restraint. Ordinarily, trial of an accused in a criminal prosecution is to be concluded under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and High Court would be reluctant to conclude the same at the interim stages as has been held in AIR 1960 SC 866 (R. P. Kapur v. State of Punjab). However inherent power can be exercised in the circumstances indicated in the said decision. Even if, one of the conditions laid down therein would be satisfied, High Court may not exercise its discretion to interfere if accused can get the same relief which is sought from a subordinate authority. In this respect, can be stated broadly that in cases where charge is to be framed, accused can satisfy the trial Court at the time, of framing charge that on the materials on record, no charge is possible to be framed against him and accused can be discharged. High Court should keep in mind that at different stages provided for in the Code itself, continuance of prosecution against an accused is cross-checked by the trial Court. Even in absence of accused, while taking cognisance, trial Court applies its mind. In cases where sanction is require i, sanctioning authorities apply mind. For filing charge sheet or prosecution report, investigating agency applies mind After process is issued where charge is to be made, all materials are considered for the purpose. in sessions trials, application of mind is made at the time of commitment. Again while framing charge in Sessions Court, there is application of mind. Parliament has kept in mind that crime is a wrong to society and to maintain peace and tranquillity, an accused is to be tried, but under our jurisprudence, without materials a person should not be called upon to face trial. At the stage of cognisance Court examines if on the Allegations made, ingredients of any offence are satisfied and at the time of framing charge whether it can have reasonable suspicion that accused might have committed the offence. Provision has been made in the Code to permit investigating agency for further investigation even during trial. Court is also authorised to issue; . process against persons who have not: been made accused to face trial where materials brought to record make out a prima facie case against such person. Courts have also been given power to summon witnesses when .satisfied that evidence sought for would be necessary for a fair trial. In case; a prosecution is brought to an end midway, there would be no scope for the provisions of the Code being utilised in given cases and it may so happen that real culprit would escape. Where charge-sheet is filed against more than one accused persons, quashing of cognisance or charge against one or in respect of one of the several offences would affect the prosecution itself since trial Court would not be in a position either to exercise power Under Section 319, Cr.P.C, or make additional charge on availability, of evidence in that regard during trial. Therefore, prayer for quashing charge or taking cognisance ought not to be entertained in a routine manner and unless High Court is satisfied that there is abuse of process of Court or ends of justice demands it, such prayer ought not to be entertained. Even if, such prayers are entertained, all endeavours should be made to examine if the abuse of powers of Court can be eradicated .without bringing the proceeding to an end in the midway. Where accused would be put to such inconvenient position that subsequent examination of these questions would materially affect him which would be irreparable in nature, High Court can for reasons to be recorded in that regard, examine the materials to interfere with the continuance of trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 15811 - J C Shah - Full Document
1   2 Next