Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (2.80 seconds)
Bharatbhai Shakarchand Shah ... vs Pravinbhai Trikamlal Thakkar (Pujara) ... on 22 November, 2021
cites
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. & Ors on 29 April, 2008
The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in
arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take
into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken
into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary
to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also
be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo
Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap
v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State
of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P
(2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007)
13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5
SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla
Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)
Perla Somasekhara Reddy & Ors vs State Of A.P Rep.By Public Prosecutor on 6 May, 2009
The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in
arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take
into consideration admissible evidence and/or had taken
into consideration the evidence brought on record contrary
to law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of proof may also
be a subject-matter of scrutiny by the appellate court. (Vide
Balak Ram v. State of U.P (1975) 3 SCC 219, Shambhoo
Missir v. State of Bihar (1990) 4 SCC 17, Shailendra Pratap
v. State of U.P (2003) 1 SCC 761, Narendra Singh v. State
of M.P (2004) 10 SCC 699, Budh Singh v. State of U.P
(2006) 9 SCC 731, State of U.P. v. Ram Veer Singh (2007)
13 SCC 102, S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (2008) 5
SCC 535, Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, Perla
Somasekhara Reddy v. State of A.P (2009) 16 SCC 98 and
Ram Singh v. State of H.P (2010) 2 SCC 445)
Sheo Swarup vs King-Emperor on 26 July, 1934
In Sheo Swarup v. King Emperor AIR 1934 PC 227, the
Privy Council observed as under: (IA p. 404) "... the High
Court should and will always give proper weight and
consideration to such matters as (1) the views of the trial
Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses; (2) the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, a
presumption certainly not weakened by the fact that he has
been acquitted at his trial; (3) the right of the accused to
the benefit of any doubt; and (4) the slowness of an
appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a
Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses."
State Of Goa vs Sanjay Thakran And Anr on 2 March, 2007
14. The aforesaid principle of law has consistently been
followed by this Court. (See Tulsiram Kanu v. State AIR
1954 SC 1, Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 216,
M.G. Agarwal v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1963 SC 200,
Khedu Mohton v. State of Bihar (1970) 2 SCC 450,
Sambasivan v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan
Singh v. State of M.P(2002) 4 SCC 85 and State of Goa v.
Sanjay Thakran (2007) 3 SCC 755)
Chandrappa & Ors vs State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2007
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC
415, this Court reiterated the legal position as under: (SCC
p. 432, para 42)
"(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
Ghurey Lal vs State Of U.P on 30 July, 2008
In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P (2008) 10 SCC 450, this
Court reiterated the said view, observing that the appellate
court in dealing with the cases in which the trial courts
have acquitted the accused, should bear in mind that the
trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is
innocent. The appellate court must give due weight and
consideration to the decision of the trial court as the trial
court had the distinct advantage of watching the
demeanour of the witnesses, and was in a better position to
evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.