Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)Section 307 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932
Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri vs State Of Jharkhand on 12 November, 2007
5) In
case of Sitaram Sao @ Mungeri v. State of Jharkhand reported
in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 391, the Apex Court in facts of the case
held that there was complete compliance under Section 306 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. State of examination of approver comes
only after he has been granted pardon and after pardon, he was
examined as witness in presence of accused and he was also cross
examined. This case therefore, does not lay down any ratio which
can be applied to the facts of the present case.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
State (Sessions Judge) vs Haku Khoda on 23 September, 1952
1) In
case of State v. Kalu Khoda & State v. Taj Mahmod Sidi and
others reported in 1962 GLR 654, Full Bench of this Court
interpreting similar provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of
1898, was of the opinion that such requirement is mandatory in
nature. It was however, observed that for non compliance
thereof , tender of pardon by sub-divisional Magistrate at the
stage of investigation in the case and acceptance by approver cannot
be said to be incompetent or unauthorised.
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
A. Deivendran vs State Of T.N. on 21 October, 1997
Next
question considered by the Apex Court in the said decision was
whether non examination of the approver as a witness after grant of
pardon and thereby noncompliance of Sub-section(4)(a) of Section 306
vitiates the entire proceedings. In the said case, Chief Judicial
Magistrate had granted pardon to the accused who was however, not
examined immediately after grant of pardon and was only examined
once by learned Sessions Judge in the course of trial. In that
background, the question arose was whether when an accused is
granted pardon after case is committed to the Court of Sessions,
would it be necessary to comply with sub-section(4)(a) of Section
306 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Question was answered by the
Apex Court in the following manner:
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2000
3) In
case of Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and another v. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2000) 8 Supreme Court Cases 457, the
Apex Court once again examined Sections 306 and 307 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. In the said case, however, trial Court had
granted pardon under Section 307. It was in this background, Apex
Court held and observed that :