Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.55 seconds)Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014
The allegations are identical to the ones raised at the time
of registration of the FIR. An inquiry was duly conducted and no case
for proceeding against respondent No. 2 was made out. There is no
quarrel with the proposition of law as delineated by the Hon'ble
Superme Court in Hardeep Singh's case (supra) that power under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. can be exercised at the stage of completion of
examination-in-chief and the court does not need to wait till it is
tested on the anvil of cross examination. However, it has also been
held in this case that the material on record should disclose the
complicity of the person in the commission of offence. While referring
to numerous earlier judgments, it has been held that the Court must
satisfy itself about the existence of an exceptional circumstance and
arrive at a satisfaction that the evidence adduced on behalf of the
RITU SHARMA
prosecution, if unrebutted, may lead to the conviction of the
2015.03.24 10:19
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No. 1726 of 2014 (O&M) 8
person/persons sought to be added as an accused, only then should
the power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. exercised. Though the test of
'prima facie case' is the same as at the time of taking cognizance but
the degree of satisfaction required is much stricter. It is observed as
under:-
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rathnashalvan vs State Of Karnataka on 11 January, 2007
In the absence of positive evidence of respondent No. 2 not
having taken necessary reasonable proper care in the facts and
circumstances of the case, no case is made out for summoning
under Section 319 Cr.P.C. In Rathnashalvan's case (supra) it has
been held that criminality lies in running the risk of doing such an act
or recklessness or indifference as to the consequences. There has
to be a failure to carry out an action which was the imperative duty of
the accused. A clear distinction has been made out between
culpable negligence or rashness.
Guriya @ Tabassum Tauquir And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 28 September, 2007
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Guriya @ Tabassum
Tauquir and others versus State of Bihar and another 2007 (2)
CAR (SC) 957 has held that an extraordinary power under Section
RITU SHARMA
319 Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly and only if compelling reasons
2015.03.24 10:19
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Chandigarh
Criminal Revision No. 1726 of 2014 (O&M) 9
exist for taking action against a person against whom proceedings
had not been initiated earlier. Mere mentioning of the name of the
accused cannot form the basis of prosecution. There is no allegation
of respondent No. 2 not having taken specific steps, which were
necessary for safeguarding the life and liberty of the students.
1