Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 57 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Radhey Shyam Gupta And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2020
14. The Court also draws support from the decision of Coordinate Bench
of this Court in Shyam Gupta & Ors. v. State2 wherein mere CDR
connectivity between the accused persons was found not enough to bring the
case under grave suspicion.
Section 18 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State Of Maharashtra on 8 January, 2002
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of
Maharashtra1 has observed that while framing charges, the Judge has the
power to ascertain whether the materials on record disclose 'grave
suspicion' against the accused. It has been held as under:-
Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978
In exercising powers
under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the
question of framing the charges under the said section has the
undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited
1
(2002) 2 SCC 135
Signature Not Verified
CRL.M.C. 6586/2023 Page
Digitally5 of 7By:MANOJ
Signed
KUMAR OHRI
Signing Date:23.02.2024
12:05:30
purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against
the accused has been made out; 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; by
and large if two views are equally possible and the Judge is
satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving
rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the
accused, he will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and
in exercising jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Judge cannot act merely as a post
office or a mouthpiece 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 but
should not make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the
matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial
[See Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal&
Another (1979 3 SCC 5)]."
1