Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)

The State Of Bihar vs Ram Naresh Pandey(With Connected ... on 31 January, 1956

The submissions advanced by both the sides have been duly considered in the light of the decisions cited and the impugned orders have been scrutinized. No doubt the withdrawal from prosecution is an executive and non-judicial act but there is a wide discretion with the court, which ought to be exercised judicially on well established principles. That is to say, the court has to be satisfied that the executive function of the Public Prosecutor has not been improperly exercised or that it is not an attempt to interfere with the course of justice for illegitimate purposes. It is within these parameters, the judicial discretion is to be exercised. It is so mandated by the Apex Court in State of Bihar Vs. Ram Naresh Pandey AIR 1957 SC 389.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 221 - Full Document

Subhash Chand @ Subhash K. Aggarwal vs State (Chandigarh Administration) on 7 September, 2010

At the hearing, learned senior counsel for petitioner assailed the impugned orders on the ground that there is no provision under which application under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. can be withdrawn. To submit so, reliance was placed upon Apex Court's decisions in Patel Narshi Thakershi & ors. Vs. Pradyuman Singh ji Arjun Singh ji AIR 1970 SC 1273; R.R. Verma & ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. (1980) 3 SCC 402 & Subhash Chander Vs. State (Chandigarh Administration) & ors. AIR 1980 SC 423, wherein it has been declared that when quasi judicial power is exercised, then power of review must be conferred by a Crl.M.C.Nos. 2053; 2054 & 2055 of 2015 Page 4 of 10 statute either specifically or by necessary implication.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1