Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.26 seconds)
Sh. Sumit Nanda vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 24 September, 2019 cites

Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

In Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal 1979 CriLJ 154, this court after considering the scope of Section 227observed that the words 'no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused' clearly show that the Judge is not merely a post­office to frame charge at the behest of the prosecution but he has to exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case in order to determine that a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. In assessing this fact it is not necessary for the court to enter into the pros and cons of the matter or into weighing and balancing of evidence and probabilities but he may evaluate the material to find out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face­value establish the ingredients constituting the said offence. After considering the case law on the subject, this Court deduced as under: (1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out. (2) Where the materials placed before the court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. (3) The test to determine a prima facie case would natrurally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidence adduced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the Sumit Nanda v. State & Ors. Page No. 10/14 Crl. Revision No.83/2015 accused. (4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced judge cannot act merely as a post­office or a mouth piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1736 - S M Ali - Full Document

Sajjan Kumar vs C.B.I on 20 September, 2010

Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar Vs. CBI (2010) 9SCC 368 in para no.19 and pare no.21 held as below:­ "19. It is clear that at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the Sumit Nanda v. State & Ors. Page No. 7/14 Crl. Revision No.83/2015 accused. The presumption of the guilt of the accused which is to be drawn at the initial stage is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce proves the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross­ examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 657 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 Next