Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.25 seconds)

Anil Kumar & Ors vs M.K Aiyappa & Anr on 1 October, 2013

Further in the case of "Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 705" at para-11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the scope of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has held that the application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. The order is liable to be set aside if no reason is given therein while coming to the conclusion that there is prima facie case against the accused, though detailed reasons need not to be given. The proper satisfaction should be recorded by the Judge."
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 576 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... on 7 January, 2020

11. Now coming to the facts of the case it is needless to mention that no principle of law has been settled by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anoop Kumar Sengupta. After carefully going through the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the plea of the petitioner that the allegation against him is false and relying upon various documents, which, of course, are not undisputed documents, are certainly the defence which the petitioner can take at the appropriate stage during the trial if he is 7 Cr. M.P. No.302 of 2016 so advised. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of consideration of charge an accused cannot rely on the materials by way of defence as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of M.E. Shivalingamurthy vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru (2020) 2 SCC 768 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under in paragraph no.29:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 72 - K Joseph - Full Document
1   2 Next