Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Earabhadrappa Alias Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 1983
In Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka reported as 2004(4) RCR
(Criminal) 678, the Court ruled that the power to summon an accused is an
extraordinary power conferred on the Court and it should be used very
sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking cognizable against
the person other than the accused.
Sarabjit Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 12 May, 2009
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
Crl. R. No.468 of 2010 -7-
law in this regard was explained in Ram Kishan Rastogi's
case (Supra) and as pointed out by Mr. Ghosh, consistently
followed thereafter, 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"