Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Asokan vs State Of Kerala on 4 June, 2009
Monu Surendran (supra) itself
was overruled by the Full Bench of this Court in Asokan v. State
Crl.M.C.No.5118/2017
10
of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 770).
Suresh Chandra Bahri vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1994
In Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar : AIR
1994 SC 2420, it has been held as follows:
A. Deivendran vs State Of T.N. on 21 October, 1997
31. The decision in Deivendran (supra) is authority for
the proposition that sub-section (4) of Section 306 of the Code
cannot be held to be a condition for tendering pardon.
State Of Himachal Pradesh vs Surinder Mohan And Others on 7 February, 2000
23. However, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Surinder
Mohan : AIR 2000 SC 1862, it was held that a belated
objection by the defence regarding non-examination of the
approver under Section 306(4) of the Code cannot be accepted.
State (Delhi Admn.) vs Jagjit Singh on 15 December, 1988
25. The decision in Jagjit Singh (supra) has no
application to the facts of the present case. It was a case in
which the approver did not support the prosecution during his
examination before the Magistrate under Section 306(4) of the
Code and thereafter he raised a contention that he was not liable
to be examined as a witness for the prosecution during the trial
of the case. The Apex Court rejected this contention and held
that an approver has to be examined both in the committing
court as well as the trial court and only thereafter, pardon
granted to him can be withdrawn by the State and that the
approver cannot cast away the pardon granted to him till he is
Crl.M.C.No.5118/2017
13
examined as a witness by the prosecution during the trial of the
case.
State Of Kerala And Etc. vs Monu D. Surendran And Anr. Etc. on 30 November, 1989
Monu Surendran (supra) itself
was overruled by the Full Bench of this Court in Asokan v. State
Crl.M.C.No.5118/2017
10
of Kerala (2005 (3) KLT 770).
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar vs State Of Maharashtra on 13 May, 2009
28. When pardon is granted by the trial court under
Section 307 of the Code, examination of the approver under
Section 306(4) of the Code is not necessary (See Santosh
Kumar v. State of Maharashtra : (2009) 6 SCC 498 and
Narayan Chetanram Choudhary v. State of Maharashtra :
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2000
28. When pardon is granted by the trial court under
Section 307 of the Code, examination of the approver under
Section 306(4) of the Code is not necessary (See Santosh
Kumar v. State of Maharashtra : (2009) 6 SCC 498 and
Narayan Chetanram Choudhary v. State of Maharashtra :
R.Dineshkumar@Deena vs State Rep. By Inspector Of Police And Ors on 16 March, 2015
In Dineshkumar @ Deena v. State : AIR 2015 SC
1816, the Supreme Court allowed the trial court to grant pardon
under Section 307 of the Code to a witness already examined by
the prosecution and to examine him afresh in the case.