Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.25 seconds)Section 219 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao & Anr on 23 April, 1963
11. The jurisdictional fact for applying Sec.223(d) is the existence of an
allegation indicating the commission of offences committed in the course of
the same transaction. The expression “same transaction” occurring in
Section 239 of the 1898 Code (in parimateria with Section 223(d) of the
1973 Code) came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of
A.P. v. CheemalapatiGaneswara Rao, [AIR 1963 SC 1850]. In an oft
quoted passage, Mudholkar, J has set out the applicable test in the following
way:
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 5 in Tamil Nadu Protection of Interests of Depositors (In Financial Establishments) Act, 1997 [Entire Act]
Nasib Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 8 October, 2021
The Court would then be justified in ordering a joint trial In its recent
decision in Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab [(2022) 2 SCC 89], the Supreme
Court has pointed out that the discretion to order a joint trial has to be
decided at the beginning of the trial and not on the basis of the result of the
trial.