Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.54 seconds)Section 60 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rajendra Singh vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 6 August, 2007
20. In the instant case, on the quality of the
evidence adduced by the prosecution as far
as the appellants are concerned, it is
difficult to hold with any amount of
certainty that the same would in all
probability secure a conviction against the
appellants. The evidence which seeks to
connect the appellants with the commission
of the offence are hearsay in nature.
Section 319 Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation
where the evidence adduced by the
prosecution not only implicates a person
other than the named accused but is
sufficient for the purpose of convicting the
person to whom summons is issued. The law
in this regard was explained in Ram Kishan
Rastogi's case (supra) and as pointed out by
Mr. Ghosh, consistently followed thereafter,
1
8
except for the note of discord struck in
Rajender Singh's case (supra). It is only
logical that there must be substantive
evidence against a person in order to summon
him for trial, although, he is not named in
the charge-sheet or he has been discharged
from the case, which would warrant his
prosecution thereafter with a good chance of
his conviction.
Bholu Ram vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 29 August, 2008
16. The same submissions were advanced by Mr.
Puri appearing for the de-facto complainant,
Ashok Pattanayak, who had been impleaded as
respondent No.2 in the present appeal. Mr.
Puri referred to the decision of this Court
1
4
in Bholu Ram vs. State of Punjab [2008 (9)
SCC 140] wherein it had been held that
Section 319 Cr.P.C. empowered the Court to
proceed against any person not shown to be
an accused, if it appeared from the evidence
that such person had committed an offence
for which he could be tried along with the
accused. It was further observed that when
in a case against one or more accused a
Magistrate finds from the evidence adduced
that some person other than the accused was
also involved in that very offence, it was
only proper that the Magistrate should have
power to summon by joining such person as an
accused in the case.
Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 245 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Michael Machado & Anr vs Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr on 17 February, 2000
In this regard, Mr. Ghosh firstly referred
to the oft-repeated decision of this Court
in the case of Michael Machado vs. CBI,
[2000 (3) SCC 262] where the essential
conditions for the exercise of power under
Section 319 of Cr.P.C. had been considered
and it was held that the power under Section
319 vested in the Court should be used
sparingly and the evidence on which the same
was to be invoked should indicate a
reasonable prospect of conviction of the
persons to be summoned. This Court went on
to hold that mere suspicion of the
involvement of the person concerned in the
offence was not enough, particularly when a
8
large number of witnesses had been examined
and no evidence on which conviction could be
secured had been adduced on behalf of the
prosecution. It was ultimately observed
that in such a case there could be no
justification for proceeding against the
persons summoned under Section 319 which
would entail recommencing the whole
proceedings against the newly-added persons
and re-examining the witnesses already
examined.