Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.39 seconds)
Vishnu vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2019 cites

Ram Chander vs State Of Haryana on 25 February, 1981

19. If a criminal court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the presiding judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine. He must become a participant in the trial by evincing intelligent active interest by putting questions to witnesses in order to ascertain the truth. It is the duty of a judge to discover the truth and for that purpose he may "ask any question, in any form, at any time, of any witness or of the parties, about any fact, relevant or irrelevant". But this he must do, without unduly trespassing upon the functions of the public prosecutor and the defence counsel, without any hint of partisanship (See Ram Chander v. State of Tr.P.(Crl) No.100/2019 16 Haryana : AIR 1981 SC 1036).
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 47 - O C Reddy - Full Document

Nahar Singh Yadav & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 November, 2010

22. A prayer for transfer should be allowed only when there is a well substantiated apprehension that justice will not be dispensed impartially, objectively and without any bias (See Nahar Singh Yadav v. Union of India : AIR 2011 SC 1549). Free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. If the criminal trial is not free and fair and if it is biased, judicial fairness and the criminal justice system would be at stake. However, the apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary. There must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done. Mere allegation of apprehension that justice will not be done in a given case does not suffice.
Supreme Court of India Cites 29 - Cited by 53 - D K Jain - Full Document
1   2 Next