Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.66 seconds)Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
State Of Maharashtra vs Champalal Punjaji Shah on 12 August, 1981
(b)Where the accused had been acquitted
on ground of delay in conducting trial,
which delay was attributable not to the
tardiness or indifference of the prosecuting
agencies, but to the conduct of the
r accused himself; or where accused had
been acquitted on ground of delay in
conducting trial relating to an offence
which is not of a trivial nature. [State of
Maharashtra v. Champalal Punjaji Shah
(1981) 3 SCC 610]."
State Of Rajasthan vs Sukhpal Singh & Others on 16 December, 1982
(c) Where testimony of witnesses had been
disbelieved by the High Court, on an
unrealistic conjecture of personal motive
on the part of witnesses to implicate the
accused, when in fact, the witnesses had
no axe to grind in the said matter. [State of
Rajasthan v. Sukhpal Singh (1983) 1 SCC
393]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 417 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Muralidhar @ Gidda & Anr vs State Of Karnataka on 9 April, 2014
Court in Muralidhar alias Gidda & another Vs. State of
Karnataka reported in (2014) 5 SCC 730, which reads as under:
Rajesh Prasad vs The State Of Bihar And Anr. Etc. on 7 January, 2022
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Prasad vs.
State of Bihar & another, (2022) 3 SCC 471, observed as under:
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Sahai And Ors. on 14 April, 1981
31.1. Ordinarily, this Court is cautious in interfering
with an order of acquittal, especially when the
order of acquittal has been confirmed up to the
High Court. It is only in rarest of rare cases,
where the High Court, on an absolutely wrong
process of reasoning and a legally erroneous
and perverse approach to the facts of the case,
ignoring some of the most vital facts, has
acquitted the accused, that the same may be
r reversed by this Court, exercising jurisdiction
under Article 136 of the Constitution. [State of
U.P. v. Sahai (1982) 1 SCC 352] Such fetters on
the right to entertain an appeal are prompted by
the reluctance to expose a person, who has
been acquitted by a competent court of a
criminal charge, to the anxiety and tension of a
further examination of the case, even though it
is held by a superior court.