Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.26 seconds)Section 164 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Ram Kishan Rohtagi And Others on 1 December, 1982
The observation of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) and other decisions following the same is that mere existence of a prima facie case may not serve the purpose. Different standards are required to be applied at different stages. Whereas the test of prima facie case may be sufficient for taking cognizance of an offence at the stage of framing of charge, the court must be satisfied that there exists a strong suspicion. While framing charge in terms of Section 227 of the Code, the court must consider the entire materials on record to form an opinion that the evidence if unrebutted would lead to a judgment of conviction. Whether a higher standard be set up for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Code is the question. The answer to these questions should be rendered in the affirmative. Unless a higher standard for the purpose of forming an opinion to summon a person as an additional accused is laid down, the ingredients thereof, viz., (i) an extraordinary case and (ii) a case for sparingly exercise of jurisdiction, would not be satisfied."
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 148 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Mohd. Shafi vs Mohd. Rafiq & Anr on 9 April, 2007
In a reported decision in Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq & Anr. [JT 2007 (5) SC 562], to which one of us (Sinha, J.) was a party, this Court had observed in para 7 as under:
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Zahoor And Others vs State Of U.P. on 25 October, 1990
On the one hand, the informant (P.W.-2) says that he was present at the time of occurrence and other prosecution witnesses reached the spot on alarm being raised and had also saw a motorcyclist, but, they had not identified him. Therefore, on such a shaky, untrustworthy and unconvincing evidence, there is no likelihood that the revisionist can be convicted and moreover, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Zahoor and others (supra), the revisionist cannot be summoned.