Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (0.23 seconds)Section 378 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 139 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Mahendra Pratap Singh vs Sarju Singh & Anr on 20 November, 1967
8. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh
Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State
of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another
Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and
1
Crl.Revision No.388 of 2004 dated 22.07.2019.
Khetrabasi Samal Etc vs State Of Orissa Etc on 14 August, 1969
8. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh
Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State
of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another
Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and
1
Crl.Revision No.388 of 2004 dated 22.07.2019.
Satyendra Nath Dutta & Anr vs Ram Narain on 18 November, 1974
8. The above view has been reiterated in Mahendra Pratap Singh
Vs. Sarju Singh, AIR 1968 SC 707; Khetrabasi Samal Vs. State
of Orissa, AIR 1970 SC 272; Satyendra Nath Dutta and another
Vs. Ram Narain, AIR 1975 SC 580; Jagannath Choudhary and
1
Crl.Revision No.388 of 2004 dated 22.07.2019.
Johar And Others vs Mangal Prasad And Another on 30 January, 2008
Dr.GRR,J
6 Crlrc No.1038 of 2016
others Vs. Ramayan Singh and another, 2002(5) SCC 659; and,
Johar and others Vs. Mandal Prasad and another, 2008 Cr.L.J.
1627 (S.C.).
Duli Chand vs Delhi Administration on 6 August, 1975
In Duli Chand Vs. Delhi Administration, 1975(4) SCC 649 the
Court reminded that jurisdiction of High Court in criminal
revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon
reappreciation of evidence. While exercising supervisory
jurisdiction in revision the Court would be justified in refusing to
re-appreciate evidence for determining whether the concurrent
findings of fact reached by learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge
was correct.
Pathumma & Anr vs Muhammad on 17 April, 1986
In Pathumma and another Vs. Muhammad, 1986(2) SCC 585
reiterating the above view the Court said that in revisional
jurisdiction the High Court would not be justified in substituting
its own view for that of a Magistrate on a question of fact.
Munna Devi vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 6 November, 2001
In Munna Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 2001(9)
SCC 631 the Court said: