Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)Section 362 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
M/S. Mandvi Co-Op Bank Ltd vs Nimesh B.Thakore on 11 January, 2010
The legal principles
laid down by the Apex Court in Mandvi Co-op. Bank Ltd.' case (supra)
have been reiterated by this Court in the case in Tomy.T.J. v. State of
Kerala and another reported in 2017(2) KHC 841.
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 145 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The General Clauses Act, 1897 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State Of Kerala vs M. M. Manikantan Nair on 25 April, 2001
In State of
Kerala v. Manikantan Nair, AIR 2001 SC 2145, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the criminal court cannot review its order or judgment except
for correcting a clerical or arithmetical mistake.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tony J Alapatt vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 24 November, 1978
12. This Court in Tomy.T.J.'s case (supra) had specifically
directed that the trial court should return back the affidavit submitted by
the accused and should permit the accused to ensure that in case he
voluntarily examined himself as a defence witness, then the trial court
should allow the defence witness DW-1/accused to tender his oral
evidence in terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. The present impugned
order in Annexure-V is illegal and ultravires and has caused
unnecessary inconvenience to both the complainant and the accused.
Such situation could be easily avoided by the trial court by adopting the
abovesaid procedure and by disabusing the notion that the earlier
proceedings allowing the accused to tender proof affidavit in lieu of chief
examination, would be a total bar from him being examined afresh in
terms of Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. on the purported ground that it
cannot be reviewed due to the bar contained in Section 315 of the
Cr.P.C. If the said mechanistic approach of the learned Magistrate is
upheld, then it will amount to denying the accused his precious right to
defend himself in a criminal trial, which is nothing short of flagrant
violation of the "due process" protection of Article 21 of the Constitution
of India.