Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.23 seconds)
State vs . Sardar Manjeet Singh on 5 November, 2014 cites

Ashok Kumar Gupta , Vidya Sagar Gupta & ... vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 21 March, 1997

19. It is mandated by Section 195 of Cr.P.C that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable U/s 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It is admitted position in the present matter that the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has not been proved on record as Administrative Officer, MCD West Zone Sh. Krishan Kumar Bhardwaj, who made the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has not been examined in prosecution evidence. Neither the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has been proved on record by secondary evidence. This is to be noted that on 08.02.2012 Ld. predecessor of this Court had allowed an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C moved by the then Ld. APP to examine MCD (West Zone) Official to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, summons were issued, however, it was observed by the Court on 05.05.2012 that as per the report on summons, it was reported that no person is available in MCD who can identify or verify the signature or the handwriting of Sh. K.K. Bhardwaj. Consequently, the PE was closed. Hence, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C remained not proved. It is argued by Ld. APP for State that the failure to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C would only vitiate trial in respect of offence punishable U/s 186 IPC, but the trial cannot be vitiated in respect of offence U/s 332 & 353 IPC as no formal complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C is required for taking cognizance for offences punishable under these sections. On the other hand, it is argued by Ld. defence counsel placing reliance on Ashok & Ors. Vs. State and Radhey Shyam Gupta Vs. State (Supra) that trial for the offences U/s 186, 332 and 353 of the IPC without a special complaint as required U/s 195 (1) (a) (i) of Cr.P.C be illegal is vitiated and deserves to be quashed.
Supreme Court of India Cites 79 - Cited by 889 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Ganga Singh vs State Of M.P on 4 July, 2013

25. The fact that weapon of offence i.e. the screw driver was not recovered by the police officials or that the MLC was prepared after five hours would not destroy the case of prosecution in toto. Further, it is established principle of law that the complainant/victim shall not suffer due to the conduct of the IO and the accused shall not be allowed to take benefit of the faulty investigation of the IO. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ganga Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2013) 7 SCC 278 that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 113 - A K Patnaik - Full Document
1