Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.11 seconds)
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Surinder Mohan And Others on 7 February, 2000 cites

Kalu Khoda And Ors. vs The State on 7 March, 1962

The Court relied upon the decision of Gujarat High Court in Kalu Khoda v. State {AIR 1962 Guj. 283}, wherein the Court interpreted Section 337 of the (Old) Cr.P.C. which is analogous to Section 306(4) of Cr.P.C. As against this, Kerala High Court in Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum {1988 Crl.L.J. 812} has observed that examination under Section 306(4) would be even before issuing process and at that stage no inquiry is involved and accused will be no where in picture, therefore, there is no question of accused being permitted to cross-examine the approver at that stage and he has no right to participate in that examination.
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sanjay Gandhi vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 February, 1978

No party to a criminal trial has a vested right in slow motion justice since the soul of social justice in this area of law is prompt trial followed by verdict of innocence or sentence. Since a fair trial is not a limping hearing, we view with grave concern any judicial insoucience which lengthens litigation to limits of exasperation The Court further held that the scope of committal proceedings is limited to merely ascertaining whether the case, as disclosed in the police report involves an offence triable exclusively by the Court of Session. The Court thereafter observed: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 91 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994

In Suresh Chandra Bahris case (supra) this Court considered the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 306 and observed that the object and purpose of enacting the provision is obviously intended to provide a safeguard to the accused inasmuch as the approver has to make a statement disclosing his evidence at the preliminary stage before the committal order is made and the accused not only becomes aware of the evidence against him, but he is also afforded an opportunity to meet with the evidence of the approver before the committing court itself at the very threshold so that he may take steps to show that the approvers evidence at the trial was untrustworthy, in case there are any contradictions or improvements made by him during his evidence at the trial. Learned Judges pointed out the utility of examination of the approver at two stages. While holding that the provision is mandatory, the Court said that since the defect was rectified in that case the non-compliance of it cannot be held to have vitiated the proceedings. Their Lordships did not consider the situation as in the case where the approver was examined and the case went to the trial court where the approver was cross-examined without raising any demur regarding the omission to cross-examine him at the pre-committal stage. After considering the provisions of Section 306, the Court held that if the defect of not examining the approver at the committal stage by the committing Magistrate is rectified later, no prejudice can be said to be caused to an accused person and, therefore, the trial cannot be said to be vitiated on that account.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 424 - Full Document
1   2 Next