Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 204 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996
In Satish Mehra v. Delhi
Administration, 1996 JCC 507, Supreme Court held that
Sessions Judge would be within his power to consider even
the materials which the accused may produce at the stage
contemplated under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. This
principle by analogy would be applicable to the warrant or
summons trial cases at the time of framing of notice.
Even otherwise, the principle of audi alteram pertem,
mandates that no one shall be condemned unheard.
Naba Kishore Pati (Dead) And After Him ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 September, 1985
It forms
part of the rules of natural justice, as was held by the
Apex Court in the case of Menaka Gandhi v. Union of
India, . The procedure has to be fair,
just and proper. This right of hearing cannot be denied
to an accused, it is inherent in any judicial process.
Order of framing of notice does substantially affect the
rights of an accused.
The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 294 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
K.M. Mathew vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 19 November, 1991
6. In this case, as noticed, the facts are not in
dispute. After service of summons, accused appeared
before the trial court and record of Income-tax was
summoned. Admission/denial of documents has already
been carried out. As held by the Supreme Court in
K.M. Methew case (supra), power to drop the proceedings
against the accused is vested in the Court, even after he
is summoned. It therefore, follow that the accused
would be entitled to a hearing at the notice stage even
in a summon trial case. The accused cannot be forced to
go through the mill of trial, if he demonstrates on the
basis of admitted facts that no case against him is made
out. In such a situation the court would be well within
its jurisdiction to revoke the cognizance.