Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.21 seconds)
Prema Devi vs State Of U.P. & 13 Others on 10 February, 2014 cites

Central Bureau Of Investigationand Anr vs Rajesh Gandhi And Anr on 7 October, 1996

"Invariably the transfers had been effected on the recommendation of ministers and other political functionaries. These rampant transfers at the instance of the accused are in the teeth of the decision of the Apex Court in C.B.I. v. Rajesh Gandhi, which says ordinarily the accused has no locus standi in choosing the investigating agency which can conduct the investigation."
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 232 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Sandeep Kumar Yadav Son Of Late Ram Pher ... vs State Of U.P. Through Home Secretary And ... on 15 September, 2006

17. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in 2006 (56) ACC 803 relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CBI vs. Rajesh Gandhi (supra) has held that ordinarily the accused has no locus standi in choosing the investigating agency which can conduct the investigation. In paragraph 14 of the said report this court has held as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Maj Saurabh Saharan vs Union Of India And Ors on 19 March, 2013

18. Again in the case of Saurabh Sahai Vs. State U.P. & Ors. reported in 2011 (Suppl.) ACC 617 a Division Bench of this Court quashed the order by means of which the investigation was transferred from Local Police to CB-CID at the behest of the accused and directed the matter to be investigated expeditiously by the local police. In paragraph no. 4 of the aforesaid judgment this court observed as follows:
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - S R Bhat - Full Document

Abdul Nazar Madani vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Anr. on 5 May, 2000

In Abdul Nazar Madani v. State of T.N., (2000) 6 SCC 204, in paragraph 7 the apex court has held that the purpose of the criminal trial is to dispense fair and impartial justice uninfluenced by extraneous considerations. It was observed that the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial inquiry or trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary, based upon conjectures and surmises.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 103 - R P Sethi - Full Document
1   2 Next