Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Gold (Control) Act, 1968
The Customs Act, 1962
Rajeswar Prosad Misra vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 May, 1965
25. It has been held by this Court in Rajeswar Prosad Mizra v. State of West Bengal and Anr. while dealing with the ample power and jurisdiction of the court in taking additional evidence as follows:
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 28 September, 1978
26. The above view has been reiterated in R.B. Mithani v. Maharashtra .
Rengaswami Naicker vs Muruga Naicken on 30 July, 1952
This was the view taken by various High Courts such as in Channu Lal v. R. ; Rengaswami Naicker v. Muruga Naicker ; Shugan Chand v. Emperor AIR 1925 Lah 531 and The Queen v. Assanoollah, 13 SWR (Crl.) 15.
Mir Mohd. Omar & Ors vs State Of West Bengal on 8 August, 1989
33. A decision of this Court in Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors. v. State of West Bengal was relied upon to show that after the examination of the accused under Section 313 of the new Code (corresponding to Section 342 of the old Code) the prosecution should not move the Trial Judge for recalling a witness already examined, but the observation made in that decision has no application to the present case because in that case the said observation was made in a different context by this Court while examining the plea of the prosecution in making corrections of the evidence already recorded under Section 272 of the Code and that decision does not deal with the ambit of Section 540 of the Code.
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 4 April, 1967
29. See also Kewalji's case (cited above).