Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
The Right to Information Act, 2005
Section 20 in The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 239 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P on 28 March, 2014
It has been held in B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 :
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Asim Shariff vs National Investigation Agency on 1 July, 2019
"18. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down
by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the
question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions
cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant
cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for
the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case against the accused has been made out; where the material
placed before the court discloses grave suspicion against the
accused which has not been properly explained, the court will be
fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are
possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as
distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial
Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that
while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227
CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial
mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made
out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the court is not
supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on
record."
1