Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.53 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 340 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 271 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras.Union Of India: ... on 19 May, 1950
Learned counsel for the State urged before us that we should
not hold that the award of, the sentence of death to the
appellant in this case is in breach of the fundamental right
conferred by Art. 21 of the Constitution, because, he
submitted, r. 37 of the Rules was not enacted by any
legislature and, consequently, it should not be held to be a
part of the procedure established by law.In this connection,
he relied on the view expressed by Kania, C.J., in A. K.
Gopalan v. The State of Madras(1), where lie held
"No extrinsic aid is needed to interpret the
words of article 21, which in my opinion, are
not ambiguous.Normally read, and without
thinking of other Constitutions,the expression
'procedure prescribed by law'must mean
procedure prescribed by the law of the State."
This Interpretation was given in order to exclude from the
scope of Art. 21 rules of natural justice which are not
incorporated in any law. Proceeding further, he dealt with
the language of Art.31 where the expression used is "by
authority of law" and held
"It is obvious that in that clause 'law' must
mean enacted law".
Janardan Reddy And Others vs The State Of Hyderabad And ... on 16 March, 1951
In this connection, learned counsel for the State drew our
attention to two decisions of this Court reported in
Janardan Reddy and Others v. The State of Hyderabad and
Others and connected Appeals(1), and Tara Singh v. The
State(2). In the first of these two cases, this Court was
considering the effect of section 271 of the Hyderabad
Criminal Procedure Code read along with the Rules and
Circular Orders issued by the Hyderabad High Court and, in
that connection, held that, though s. 271 of the Hyderabad
Criminal Procedure Code corresponds to section 340 of the
Indian Criminal Procedure Code, these provisions did not Jay
down as a rule of law that in every capital sentence case,
where the accused is unrepresented, the trial should be held
to be vitiated. In the second case, this Court examined the
scope of the right conferred on an accused by S. 340(1) of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and held that it does not
extend to a right in an accused person to be provided with a
lawyer by the State or by the Police or by the Magistrate.
The Privilege conferred by this provision only gave a right
to an accused to be represented by a counsel if he wanted to
engage one himself or to
(1) [1951] S.C.R. 344.