Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Channu Lal And Anr. vs Rex on 11 May, 1949
'CHANNU LAL v. REX', AIR 1949 All 692.
Yeluchuri Venkatachennaya And Ors. vs Emperor on 20 February, 1920
(His Lordship discussed the evidence and proceeded:)
7-9. From all that has been stated above it is manifest that by reason alike of the inaptitude of the person in charge of the prosecution and of the apathy of the learned trying Magistrate, there was no proper trial in the present case. It has been said that a trial under the Criminal Procedure Code implied proceedings 'in which a person stood before a Court empowered to convict him of some offence alleged against him. 'VENKATACHENNAYA v. EMPEROR', AIR 1920 Mad 337 (at P. 341).
Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka vs The King on 13 January, 1948
Of course, it is not for a Court to entrench upon the exclusive jurisdiction which the police have in the matter of investigation under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 'EMPEROR v. NAZIR AHMAD', AIR 1945 P C 18, or which the Government have in the matter of sanctioning or not sanctioning the prosecution of a Government employee, 'GOKULCHAND DWARKADAS v. THE KING', AIR 1948 P C 82, but to point out that the desirability or otherwise of a possible action be looked into is not to direct that the action be necessarily taken.
Emperor vs Narbada Prasad And Anr. on 10 September, 1929
5. So far as the question of the alleged shortage of cash in hand is concerned, the prosecution relied merely on the entries in the relevant books of account. This was, however, far from having proved the shortage. Had the books of account been regularly kept in the course of business, formal proof of the entries serving to make out the allegation would not have been necessary in view of the provisions of Section 34, Evidence Act. Even then those entries would not alone have been sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. In order to fix the liability upon the respondent it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the alleged shortage by independent evidence, and the entries in the books of account could then have been used as a piece of corroborative evidence. 'EMPEROR v. NARBADA PRASAD', AIR 1930 All 38 and T. N. S. FIRM v. V.P.S. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN', AIR 1933 Mad 756.
T.N.S. Firm, Through One Of Its ... vs V.P.S. Muhammad Hussain And Ors. on 1 February, 1933
5. So far as the question of the alleged shortage of cash in hand is concerned, the prosecution relied merely on the entries in the relevant books of account. This was, however, far from having proved the shortage. Had the books of account been regularly kept in the course of business, formal proof of the entries serving to make out the allegation would not have been necessary in view of the provisions of Section 34, Evidence Act. Even then those entries would not alone have been sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. In order to fix the liability upon the respondent it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the alleged shortage by independent evidence, and the entries in the books of account could then have been used as a piece of corroborative evidence. 'EMPEROR v. NARBADA PRASAD', AIR 1930 All 38 and T. N. S. FIRM v. V.P.S. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN', AIR 1933 Mad 756.
Ambika Charan Barua vs Nareswari Dasi And Anr. on 8 April, 1924
The learned counsel for the respondent cited 'AMBIKA CHARAN v. NARESWARI DASI', AIR 1925 Cal 145, in which a comparison of handwriting was referred to as a hazardous mode of proof, but that was when made by one not conversant with the subject. The trial dragged its slow length along for two protracted years before the Magistrate. There were numerous unnecessary adjournments, and on certain dates nothing more was done than to examine a witness in part. The only occasion, however, on which the learned Magistrate appears to have been galvanised into activity
(with negative effect, though) was when moved to summon a handwriting expert.
1