Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.38 seconds)

State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Jagdish Singh And Ors. on 26 April, 1988

“It appears that the appeal was preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the order of acquittal dated 24-5-1989 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Pilibhit in Case No. 153 of 1986. The said sessions case was filed against the respondent-accused under Section 302 read with Sections 307 and 34 IPC. The leave application was dismissed summarily without indicating any reason and the consequential order of dismissal of appeal was also passed without indicating any reason. It is really unfortunate that the appeal was disposed of without giving any reason whatsoever. On 26- 4-1988, against a similar order of dismissal in limine passed by the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Jagdish Singh1 (an appeal) was moved before this Court and a three Judges' Bench of this Court deprecated such order disposing of the appeal without giving any reason. Unfortunately, a similar improper order has been passed in this case. To say the least, it is a sorry state of affairs. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of dismissal of the appeal in limine and send the matter back to the High Court with a direction to dispose of the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.”
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Raj Kishore Jha vs State Of Bihar And Ors on 7 October, 2003

14. This Court, in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others[6] and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar[7], had held that “reason” is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. It is dangerous to forget that reason is the essential foundation on which a conclusion can be based. Giving reasons for an order is the sacrosanct requirement of law which is the aim of every civilized society. And intellect respects it. It would not be out of place to state here that the reasons in criminal jurisprudence must flow from the material on record and in this regard, a line from Bossuet is worth reproducing: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 347 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Orissa vs Dhaniram Luhar on 4 February, 2004

14. This Court, in Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and others[6] and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar[7], had held that “reason” is the heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same, it becomes lifeless. It is dangerous to forget that reason is the essential foundation on which a conclusion can be based. Giving reasons for an order is the sacrosanct requirement of law which is the aim of every civilized society. And intellect respects it. It would not be out of place to state here that the reasons in criminal jurisprudence must flow from the material on record and in this regard, a line from Bossuet is worth reproducing: -
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 295 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next