Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.27 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 154 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 156 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Raghuraj Singh on 2 November, 1966
In the case of State v. Raghuraj Singh 1970 (1) Cr.L.J. 78 it was observed that, test identification parade is not the substantive piece of evidence and consequently identification proceedings are not subject to directions by a Court.
Pampapathy vs State Of Mysore on 28 July, 1966
46. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the general proposition of law relating to the inherent jurisdiction of High Court should be kept in view in all matters where the inherent jurisdiction is invoked. Reliance is placed on the principle laid down in the case of Pampapathy v. State of Mysore . The question was whether in the absence of any specific provision for cancellation of ball granted under Section 426 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) the provisions of Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (old) can be pressed into service. Their Lordships replied the question in affirmative.
Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed on 17 October, 1944
48. The basic authority on the point on which the learned Public Prosecutor mainly and the learned Counsel for the petitioners to some extent, have placed reliance is the case of Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR (37) 1945 PC 18. Their Lordships of the Privy Council were pleased to make the following observations: