Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 46 (0.33 seconds)
Sh. Satya Pal Gupta vs State on 9 December, 2021 cites

Vipul Gupta vs State & Anr. on 23 January, 2018

6.2 With the help of judicial precedents, the learned prosecutor argued that since accused has no right to file any document at the stage of consideration of charge, claim of the revisionists that they had a right to first get the cases consolidated is not supported by any law. It was further argued by the learned p rosecutor that these revision petitions have been filed by single accused persons in each of CR No. 54/2021 Satya Pal Gupta vs. State CR no. 75/2021 Vinod Kumar Bindal vs. State CR no. 76/2021 S.P. Gupta vs. State CR no. 77/2021 Vipul Gupta vs. State page 13 of 44 pages the cases pending trial and the revisionists do not represent the remaining accused persons, so this court without hearing the remaining accused persons ought not to direct that arguments under Sections 219 & 220 CrPC be heard prior to arguments on charge.
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 2 - V Sanghi - Full Document

M/S Vinod Kumar Jain vs State Of Chhattisgarh 52 Wa/489/2018 ... on 26 November, 2018

6.2 With the help of judicial precedents, the learned prosecutor argued that since accused has no right to file any document at the stage of consideration of charge, claim of the revisionists that they had a right to first get the cases consolidated is not supported by any law. It was further argued by the learned p rosecutor that these revision petitions have been filed by single accused persons in each of CR No. 54/2021 Satya Pal Gupta vs. State CR no. 75/2021 Vinod Kumar Bindal vs. State CR no. 76/2021 S.P. Gupta vs. State CR no. 77/2021 Vipul Gupta vs. State page 13 of 44 pages the cases pending trial and the revisionists do not represent the remaining accused persons, so this court without hearing the remaining accused persons ought not to direct that arguments under Sections 219 & 220 CrPC be heard prior to arguments on charge.
Chattisgarh High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Misc.Petition U/S.482 Cr.P.C. Against ... vs . Shrikishan And Others By Which, ... on 7 October, 2014

6.2 With the help of judicial precedents, the learned prosecutor argued that since accused has no right to file any document at the stage of consideration of charge, claim of the revisionists that they had a right to first get the cases consolidated is not supported by any law. It was further argued by the learned p rosecutor that these revision petitions have been filed by single accused persons in each of CR No. 54/2021 Satya Pal Gupta vs. State CR no. 75/2021 Vinod Kumar Bindal vs. State CR no. 76/2021 S.P. Gupta vs. State CR no. 77/2021 Vipul Gupta vs. State page 13 of 44 pages the cases pending trial and the revisionists do not represent the remaining accused persons, so this court without hearing the remaining accused persons ought not to direct that arguments under Sections 219 & 220 CrPC be heard prior to arguments on charge.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977

"It is now well-nigh settled that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not as for Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage (vide Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, V. C. Shukla v. State through CBI and Rajendra Kumar Sitaram Pande v. Uttam). The feasible test is whether by upholding the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so any order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. In the present case, if the objections raised by the appellants were upheld by the Court the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated.Hence, as per the said standard,the order was revisable "
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 1313 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next