Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Bhagwat Singh And Ors. vs Emperor on 24 November, 1924
4. Where the property is delivered to one of the parties, the only effect of such order is that it determines which of the parties should be left to sue in the civil Court: - 'Bhagwat Ram v. Emperor', 12 Crl LJ 400 (Mad) (M); - 'Rahman v. Abdul Samad', AIR 1919 Low Bur 51(1) (N). In fact the trial Court in' the instant case has adopted a most reprehensible procedure in regard to the property involved of asking the accused as to what he has to say regarding the deposition of P. Ws. 10 to 12 and the, accused merely stated that he had nothing to say and that he had "no connection".
The Public Prosecutor vs Marimuthu Gounden And Ors. on 19 November, 1937
The appellate Court found that this confessional statement could not be accepted as it exceeded the limits of admissibility laid down in the Privy Council decision of - 'Kotayya v. Emperor', AIR 1947 PC 67 (A) and the Madras cases of - 'Vodde Nagappa In re', AIR 1948 Mad 104(2) (B); - 'Public Prosecutor v. Voor Gounden', AIR 1948 Mad 242 (C); - 'In re Vellingiri', (D) - 'In re Sheikh Khadir Sahib', (E) and that there were several circumstances in this case like the uncle not coming forward with the complaint at the earliest possible time and the improbability of a nephew stealing the property of his uncle etc. creating considerable doubt and reversed the trial Magistrate's conviction giving the accused the benefit of doubt.
Fazalar Rahman And Ors. vs Abdul Samad And Ors. on 19 August, 1925
4. Where the property is delivered to one of the parties, the only effect of such order is that it determines which of the parties should be left to sue in the civil Court: - 'Bhagwat Ram v. Emperor', 12 Crl LJ 400 (Mad) (M); - 'Rahman v. Abdul Samad', AIR 1919 Low Bur 51(1) (N). In fact the trial Court in' the instant case has adopted a most reprehensible procedure in regard to the property involved of asking the accused as to what he has to say regarding the deposition of P. Ws. 10 to 12 and the, accused merely stated that he had nothing to say and that he had "no connection".
1