Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Yogendra Yadav & Ors vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 21 July, 2014
4.7 The Apex court in the case of Jogendra Yadav (supra) has
held in para 9 that prior opportunity before the order u/S. 319 is
passed ought to be afforded. Said para 9 of the judgment is
reproduced below:-
Section 398 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Hardeep Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 10 January, 2014
4. Bare perusal of the provision of Sec. 319 of Cr.P.C. makes it
clear that the said power can be invoked by the trial court on an
application and so also suo motu. Moreover, the scope of Sec. 319 of
2 Crr 349/17
Satya Prakash Singh Vs. State of M.P.
Cr.P.C., has been elaborately discussed by the Apex Court in the case
of Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 (3)
SCC 92 where bench comprising of 5 Hon. Judges of the Apex Court
laid down the law authoritatively after dealing with variety of views
expressed by the Apex Court on earlier occasions qua Sec. 319 of
Cr.P.C. In the said case of Hardeep Singh (supra), the Apex Court
while answering to Question No.(v) as to whether person who though
has been named in the FIR but has not been charge sheeted can be
subjected to proceedings u/S. 319 of Cr.P.C. ?, has held in para 116
as follows:-
Satya Prakash Singh @ Satyam vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 January, 2015
(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of,
an offence, it appears from the evidence that any
person not being the accused has committed any
offence for which such person could be tried together
with the accused, the Court may proceed against such
3 Crr 349/17
Satya Prakash Singh Vs. State of M.P.
person for the offence which he appears to have
committed.
1