Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)
Lal Singh Arya vs Ranveer Jatav on 29 May, 2017 cites

Anju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 13 December, 2012

From the above, it discernible that grant of opportunity to be heard to an accused before passing order u/s 319 is mandatory as per the verdict of the Apex Court. Though such an opportunity is not perceivable from the plain reading of language of Section 319 but the Apex Court has impliedly held that the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) is inherent in the provision. 6.2 Learned counsel for the victim placing reliance on another Coordinate Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary (supra) which has not been considered by the Apex Court in its subsequent decision of Jogendra Yadav, has contended by referring to para 34 that no prior opportunity of hearing before invoking Section 319 is necessary as no such 6 CRR.508 /2017 opportunity is contemplated by the said provision. The relevant paragraph 34 of the said decision is reproduced below for convenience and ready reference:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 41 - Cited by 232 - S Kumar - Full Document

Yogendra Prasad Yadav & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 November, 2011

6.3 Thus the dispute before the Apex Court in the case of Anju Chaudhary (supra) was distinct than the issue before the Apex Court in the case of Jogendra Yadav and Hardeep singh(supra) which directly dealt with provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the decision in the case of Anju Chaudhary (supra) is not an authority as regards Section 319 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Court following the decision of the Apex Court in Jogendra Yadav(supra) and more particularly Hardeep Singh has no hesitation to hold that the trial Court ought to have afforded 7 CRR.508 /2017 opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before invoking Section 319 Cr.P.C. Thus, to the above extent, the impugned order is vitiated in the eye of law.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 31 - D Jha - Full Document

Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014

(i) The order impugned passed by the learned trial Court in Special Sessions Trial No. 111 / 2009 passed on 19.05.2017 is set aside to the extent it allows application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., with direction to the learned trial Judge to afford opportunity to the petitioner to be heard before deciding the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. afresh in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Hardeep Singh and Jogender Yadav (supra) as expeditiously as possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 114 - Cited by 1591 - B S Chauhan - Full Document
1   2 Next