Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.41 seconds)
Nishant Singh Shekhawat vs State Of Karnataka on 5 June, 2024 cites

Faddi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 January, 1964

"8. I have considered the arguments. Firstly, one point of argument regarding registration of an FIR is to be dealt with. All the counsel for the petitioners have fussed over this aspect. It is true that the second respondent made a report to the Cubbon Park police for registration of FIR on the basis of information that he gathered while interrogating a player in connection with Crime No. 124/2019. It appears -3- NC: 2024:KHC:19557 CRL.P No. 7557 of 2023 that the information the second respondent gathered is in the form of confession of an accused and this is the reason for taking strong objection for registration of FIR in Crime No. 197/2019 which has given rise to charge sheet in the case on hand. Of course there is substance in the argument that the confession statement of an accused given before the police cannot be referred to in view of bar contained in section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, the said bar is to the extent of proving the confession against the accused who made it, there is no prohibition as such to make use of any information that a police officer comes to know for the first time regarding a crime which might have taken place in the past and not detected till then, while interrogating an accused in connection with another case of crime. Supposing that an accused himself goes to police station and gives information about the offence committed by him, the police in such a circumstance can very well register an FIR and this proposition is well established [Faddi vs State of Madhya Pradesh, (AIR 1964 SC 1850) and Aghnoo Nagesia vs State of Bihar (AIR 1966 SC 119)]. If this is the position, why a statement given by a co-accused regarding another crime cannot be made use of for registration of FIR. In fact many incidents of -4- NC: 2024:KHC:19557 CRL.P No. 7557 of 2023 theft, robbery or dacoity come to light only during such interrogations. It may be stated further that such statement can be made use of only for the limited purpose of registration of FIR and it cannot be used for proving it against an accused. Registration of FIR is not the end in itself and it is not a substantive piece of evidence also. Mere registration of FIR in this manner does not lead to convicting an accused, investigator has to collect independent evidence and further the prosecution must be able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore the entire argument that statement of a co-accused during interrogation in connection with some other crime cannot form basis for registration of FIR is totally unfounded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 60 - R Dayal - Full Document

Board Of Control For Cricket vs Cricket Aasociation Of Bihar & Ors on 18 July, 2016

12. One of the petitioners is a bookie said to have involved in betting. Sri Hashmath Pasha has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket vs Cricket Association of Bihar and -7- NC: 2024:KHC:19557 CRL.P No. 7557 of 2023 Others [2016 (8) SCC 535] where it is observed that betting is to be legalized. It was argued by the respondent that betting amounts to gaming which is an offence under the Karnataka Police Act. If section 2(7) of Karnataka Police Act is seen, its explanation very clearly says that game of chance does not include any athletic game or sport. Cricket is a sport and therefore even if betting takes place, it cannot be brought within the ambit of definition of 'gaming' found in Karnataka Police Act.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 47 - T S Thakur - Full Document

Sri. Sachin Narayan vs The Income Tax Department on 29 August, 2019

13. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa argued that section 120B of IPC is an independent offence and therefore notwithstanding the fact that ingredients for section 420 IPC can be said to be not there for argument sake, still the accused can be prosecuted for offence under 120B and in this regard he has placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate bench of this court in the case of Sachin Narayan vs Income Tax Department and Another (W.P.5299/2019 and connected writ petitions). There is no second word with regard to his argument that section 120B is an independent offence but, to invoke this offence of conspiracy, as has been argued by Sri Hashmath Pasha, the -8- NC: 2024:KHC:19557 CRL.P No. 7557 of 2023 allegations found in the charge sheet must constitute an offence in connection with which conspiracy is alleged. As discussed above, the allegations found in the charge sheet do not constitute an offence under section 420 IPC and therefore offence under section 120B cannot be invoked in the facts and circumstances. Therefore the argument of Sri Dhyan Chinnappa cannot be accepted.
Karnataka High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 10 - A Kumar - Full Document
1