Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.74 seconds)G. Sagar Suri And Anr vs State Of Up. And Ors on 28 January, 2000
(15) That this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the
Page 7 of 16
R/SCR.A/4176/2015 ORDER
Code, can certainly examine the validity of the orders
of the Trial Court and the Sessions Court regarding a
discharge application, as is clear from the judgment
in the case of G. Sagar Suri And Another Vs. State of
U.P. And Others reported at (2000) 2 SCC 636.
(16) Looking to the facts and circumstances and the
aspect that the document used against the petitioners
does not connect them to the alleged offence and as
the petitioners are being falsely implicated, the
matter requires consideration and the petitioners are
required to be protected by this Court.
P.Vijayan vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 27 January, 2010
(1) P. Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala And Another
reported in (2010) 2 SCC 398
(2) Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394
(3) While framing the charge, the Court has to see
whether there is an element of suspicion about the
commission of the offence against the accused persons,
or not. It is not the stage for the appreciation of
evidence, therefore, as per the findings of both the
Courts below, when a primafacie case is made out, the
charge against the petitioners can be framed.
(4) Whether, or not, the statement of a coaccused
can be believed, is an aspect to be appreciated at the
stage of trial. As per Section 10 of the Evidence Act,
1872, a statement of a coaccused can be believed
Page 9 of 16
R/SCR.A/4176/2015 ORDER
against the other coaccused. In support of this
contention, reliance has been placed upon the
following judgments:
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 65 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 239 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Suresh Alias Pappu Bhudharmal Kalani vs The State Of Maharashtra on 2 March, 2001
R/SCR.A/4176/2015 ORDER
(1) Suresh Chhotalal Verma Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2001(1) GLH 797 (Paragraphs4 and 5)
(2) Judgment dated 19.10.2004 passed by this Court
in Criminal Revision Application No.573 of 2004
(3) Suresh Budharmal kalani Alias Pappu Kalani Vs.
State of Maharashtra reported in (1998) 7 SCC
337 (Paragraph6)
(11) The Agreement is the sole document on which the
prosecution has pitched its case against the
petitioners. It is a document that has been recovered
after fifteen years of its purported execution, from
another place, and in connection with another offence.
It does not pertain to the survey numbers of land that
are the subject matter of the allegations contained in
the FIR in question. Moreover, it is a xerox copy and
not an original. Neither is it a notarized or
registered copy. As such, it is a document having no
legal or evidentiary value, that is totally
unconnected with the offence in which the petitioners
are sought to be involved, which aspect has not been
taken into consideration by both the Courts below.