Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.46 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 91 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 165 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Rajeswar Prosad Misra vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 6 May, 1965
In Rajendra Prasad (supra),
the Court had held that:
Chetan Ramniklal Mirani vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 27 June, 2022
36. Summing up the position as it obtained
from various decisions of this Court, namely
Rameshwar Dayal v. State of U.P.19, State of W.B.
v. Tulsidas Mundhra20, Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v.
State of Maharashtra21, Masalti v. State of U.P.22,
Rajeswar Prosad Misra v. State of W.B.23 and R.B.
Mithani v. State of Maharashtra24, the Court held:
Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 12 April, 2004
50. Further, in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5)
(supra), the Court reiterated the extent of powers
under Section 311 and held that:
Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd vs Computer Joint India Ltd on 30 July, 2008
Ltd. v. Computer
Joint India Ltd.27, the Court specifically dealt with
this objection and observed that the resultant filling
of loopholes on account of allowing an application
under Section 311 is merely a subsidiary factor and
the Court's determination of the application should
Varsha Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 8 August, 2022
The petitioners did not cross-examine the complainant on the
said date and it was treated as 'Nil'. Though the petitioners
ought to have cross-examined the complainant on the said
date, but would not mean that the complainant should not be
permitted to be cross-examined at all. The order passed by the
concerned Court would run counter to the spirit of Section 311
of Cr.P.C. and the interpretation of the same by the Apex Court
in the case of VARSHA GARG V. STATE OF MADHYA
PRADESH AND OTHERS1. The Apex Court holds as follows: