Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.23 seconds)Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007
Inder Mohan Goswami and another vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2007) 12 SCC cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners related to quashing of criminal proceedings.
Ram Pal Singh & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 13 February, 2009
In Ram Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 2010 (Suppl.) Cr.L.R. (SC) 765, summoning of additional accused under section 319 Cr.P.C - the High Court set aside the order and directed the trial court to issue summon against the appellants- Satisfaction of Court from the evidence that a person against whom charge has not been framed but his complicity is clear is pre-requirement for invoking powers- Appellants were named in FIR but not charge sheeted- PW-1 in his evidence has named the appellanbts who were involved in causing murder of 'B'- Held, Order of Summoning the appellants is upheld.
Sarabjit Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 12 May, 2009
29. Section 319 CrPC 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 Rohtagi case (1983) 1 SCC 1 and as pointed out by Mr Ghosh, consistently followed thereafter, except for the note of discord struck in Rajendra Singh case (2007) 7 SCC 378. 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.
Lok Ram vs Nihal Singh & Anr on 10 April, 2006
12. The Apex Court in Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh (2006) 10 SCC 192 observed: (SCC p. 195, para 6)
Mohd. Shafi vs Mohd. Rafiq & Anr on 9 April, 2007
In Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq (2007) 14 SCC 544 the Apex Court held: (SCC pp. 546-47, paras 7 & 11)
Lal Suraj @ Suraj Singh & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 18 December, 2008
14. The decision of the Apex Court in Mohd. Shafi (2007) 14 SCC 544 was further explained by the Apex Court in Lal Suraj v. State of Jharkhand (2009 ) 2 SCC 696 and it was held as under : (SCC p. 701, para 16)
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 November, 2008
15. Our attention, however, has been drawn to a two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2009) 16 SCC 785 wherein doubting the correctness of Mohd. Shafi (2008) 14 SCC 544 two questions have been referred to a larger Bench, which are as under:
Bholu Ram vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 29 August, 2008
16. Mr Mehta would also draw our attention to Bholu Ram v. State of Punjab (2008) 9 SCC 140. Whereas Hardeep Singh (2009) 16 SCC 785 is not a judgment in that sense of the term, in Bholu Ram (2008) 9 SCC 140 the principal question which arose for consideration of this Court was as to whether an order passed under Section 319 of the Code can be recalled which was answered in the negative.