Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.50 seconds)
Faisal vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 29 March, 2006 cites

Ram Jas vs State Of U.P on 11 September, 1970

10. Further, it is true that, in the decision reported in Ram Jas v. State of U.P. AIR 1974 (S.C.) 1811, it has been observed that, merely giving a false address or wrong identification to attest the affidavit by the person before the oath commissioner, it cannot be said that he had committed the offence punishable under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code. Though Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code is not as such applicable, giving a false address, so as to get themselves exonerated from the case and divert the investigation on the part of the accused will amount to an offence and it is for the court to consider the allegations and frame appropriate charge in such circumstances. Merely because a wrong provision was quoted by the police officer is not a ground to quash the proceedings, if the Crl.M.C. No.1087 of 2014 10 allegations in the final report and the materials collected will disclose some other offence, then there is no bar for the court to frame charge under the correct provisions and proceed against the accused. Since the present petitioner did not appear, the question as to whether he had committed any offence by giving false address etc. are matter to be considered after evidence. So under the circumstances, the dictum laid down in the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 67 - V Bhargava - Full Document

Moosa vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 23 December, 2005

In the decision reported in Moosa v. Sub Inspector of Police [2006 (1) KLT 552 (Full Bench)], this court has held that, acquittal of some of the accused by itself is not a reason to bar the trial in the case of other accused. Such judgment will be admissible only to show, as to who were the parties in the earlier proceedings or the factum of acquittal. Further in the same decision, it has been held that, acquittal of some of the accused after trial will not entitle co-accused for acquittal invoking the inherent powers. Further the same decision has been held that, unless it was able to come to a conclusion that, by virtue of the previous judgment, the entire prosecution case has been shattered, it cannot be said that, acquittal of some of the accused persons will entitle the co-accused get acquittal, without facing trial. In this case, the present petitioner did not appear and so, there is no possibility for CW1 to speak about the present accused person and Crl.M.C. No.1087 of 2014 12 regarding his involvement in the commission of crime. Further, the reasons stated by the presiding officer in Annexure-III judgment, need not necessarily be binding on his successor officer, as he has to evaluate the evidence produced before him, while trying the present accused by examining the witnesses and come to an independent conclusion regarding the involvement of the present accused by that presiding officer.
Kerala High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 522 - R Basant - Full Document
1