Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)Satyajit Banerjee And Others vs State Of West Bengal And Others on 23 November, 2004
2. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant, contends, that any evidence recorded in the previous trial is of no consequence, as the entire trial was invalid, as held in the judgment dated 4.5.1982, which has become final between the parties. He contends that the subsequent trial, which was initiated on a fresh cognizance with a fresh charge-sheet, was challenged on the ground of double jeopardy, and the bar contained in Section 300 Cr.P.C, which contention was negatived by this Court vide judgment dated 29.5.1998 holding, that since the entire trial previously held was deficient on account of want of proper sanction, therefore, the bar of Section 300 Cr.P.C. would not operate and a fresh trial was permissible consequent to a valid sanction in respect of the same offence. Sri Trivedi contends that for the same reason when the earlier trial is being treated not to bar a second trial, then on the same logic, any evidence collected or witness examined, cannot be treated to be a relevant piece of evidence worth receiving and admitting in the present proceedings inasmuch as the entire trial was vitiated being corum non-judice. He contends that if the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction, then in that event any evidence recorded therein would be inadmissible in law. It is urged that the decision relied upon by the court below in the case of Satyajit Banerjee v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2005(1) JIC 503 (SC), is totally misplaced inasmuch as the said decision was in a matter where the High Court had remitted the matter to the trial Court in the same proceedings for re-trial. It is urged that a case of re-trial cannot be equated with the proceedings of a denovo trial and, therefore, the ratio of the said decision was not applicable on the facts of the present controversy and hence the order deserves to be set aside.
Koti Darbar vs Ram Chand on 11 July, 1949
11. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant has rightly relied on the decisions in the case of Sankappa Rai and Ors. v. Keraga Pujary and Ors. AIR 1931 Madras 575, Koti Darbar v. Ram Chand AIR (36) 1949 H.P. 15 (paragraphs 14-19), Sudhindra Nath v. The State (Paragraphs 10-16), and Jaggan v. Basantu and Ors. 1965 AWR 772, which fully support the conclusion drawn herein above.
Section 33 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Sankappa Rai And Ors. vs Keraga Pujari And Ors. on 24 November, 1930
11. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant has rightly relied on the decisions in the case of Sankappa Rai and Ors. v. Keraga Pujary and Ors. AIR 1931 Madras 575, Koti Darbar v. Ram Chand AIR (36) 1949 H.P. 15 (paragraphs 14-19), Sudhindra Nath v. The State (Paragraphs 10-16), and Jaggan v. Basantu and Ors. 1965 AWR 772, which fully support the conclusion drawn herein above.
1