Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)
Surjeet Singh Choudhary vs State on 2 February, 2026 cites

K.Moidu vs State Of Kerala on 26 June, 2009

9. After questioning the accused under Section. 313 Cr.P.C., compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C. was mandatory. In the case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 Cr.P.C. is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in serious and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 788/2002 Page 4 of 47 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:03.02.2026 10:47:00 2888). Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232 Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him.
Kerala High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 75 - Full Document

Mohd. Iqbal, Ahmad vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 January, 1979

12. The learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the sanction for prosecution, which forms the very foundation of the case, is vitiated due to complete non-application of mind. It was submitted that PW1, the Sanctioning Authority, in his cross-examination categorically admitted that he had received only a draft sanction order along with a police report and accorded sanction solely on the basis thereof, without being supplied with the complaint, seizure memos pertaining to the tainted currency notes and wash bottles, or the statements of witnesses. It was further submitted that the alleged report of the Investigating Officer, which supposedly formed the basis for grant of sanction, was never produced before the court. Relying on the dictum of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed v. State of A.P., (1979) 4 SCC 172, the learned counsel contended that Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 788/2002 Page 6 of 47 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:03.02.2026 10:47:00 sanction cannot be an empty formality and must reflect independent satisfaction of the competent authority on consideration of all relevant material. The learned counsel submitted that the mechanical manner in which sanction was granted renders the entire prosecution vitiated in law. It was further submitted that the very fairness of the prosecution is rendered doubtful by the admitted circumstance that a senior police officer, namely, an Assistant Commissioner of Police, accompanied PW2 to the Anti-Corruption Branch, indicating that the initiation of proceedings was authority-driven rather than arising from an independent investigative assessment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 409 - S M Ali - Full Document

Rajesh Gupta vs State Of J&K & Ors on 23 January, 2013

12.2. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of demand, which is the sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act. It was argued that there are material and irreconcilable inconsistencies between the testimonies of PW2 and PW3 regarding the alleged demand, the words spoken, the language of conversation, and even the role attributed to the appellant at the time of the alleged transaction. While PW2 claimed that the conversation took place in Punjabi and involved a clear demand, PW3 stated that the conversation took place in Hindi and initially deposed that the appellant did not ask for any money, later improving his version when led by the prosecution. It was further urged that the entire prosecution version rests solely on oral assertions without any contemporaneous electronic or objective corroboration, thereby rendering proof of demand doubtful, particularly in the face of material inconsistencies. Relying on the dictum of Rajesh Gupta v. State (through CBI), Signature Not Verified CRL.A. 788/2002 Page 9 of 47 Signed By:KOMAL DHAWAN Signing Date:03.02.2026 10:47:00 CRL.A.1769/2014, it was submitted that mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient in the absence of proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, and that presumption under the PC Act cannot arise unless demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 8 - A R Dave - Full Document
1   2 Next