Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.48 seconds)
State Of Punjab vs Wassan Singh And Ors. on 10 February, 1984 cites

Amar Singh And Anr. vs The State on 4 November, 1953

He was caught in the turmoil whether the accused in both the versions could be tried jointly within the scope of Section 223. Criminal P.C. or should there be two separate trials. Yet he was cognizant of the fact that Wassan Singh accused was common to both the sets of the accused and the evidence against them was not mutually exclusive: rather most of it was common. He had views expressed in Amar Sinah v. The State. AIR 1954 Puni 106 : 1954 Cri LJ 636(DB).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Lal Chand And Ors. vs State Of Haryana on 25 October, 1983

In this view of the matter, we need not go into the subsidiary question whether the Court at that stage could look into the first information report and statements, of witnesses under Section 161, Cr. P.C. as if it was examining the case from the standpoint of Section 193, Cr. P.C. because that state on the facts of this case was over Lal Chand's case 1983 Cri LJ 1393(P. & H,) (supra) permits such course at the stage of Section 193. Criminal Procedure Code, undoubtedly.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 152 - Full Document

Amarjit Singh Ahluwalia vs The State Of Punjab & Ors on 20 December, 1974

5. It was brought to our notice by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. that the learned Sessions Judge committed an error in summoning the three left-overs just after the examination-in-chief of Charan Singh P.W. He adopted the stance on the basis of Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab. 1983 Cri LJ NOC 98. a decision rendered by one of us. in which the view taken is that bare examination-in-chief of a witness could not be termed as 'evidence' upon which the Magistrate couldact. under Section 319. Cr. P.C. it being an incomplete statement.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 149 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Gamdoor Singh vs State Of Punjab on 26 February, 1981

That view was taken on the strength of another Single Bench decision of this Court in Gamdoor Singh v. State of Punjab. Cr. M. No. 5484-M of 1980 decided on 17-12-1980. The existence of that view does not necessarily mean that we are obliged to quash the summoning order against the three left overs which was passed as far back on 19-4-1982. No stem were taken by those accused to challenge the matter in appropriate forums within a reasonable time. The learned Counsel for those accused could offer us no reasonable explanation why the accused save in and participated in the proceedings and had not challenged the order on the anvil of the aforesaid two cases. At this stage, we do not permit the said suggested error to be corrected or reversed in these proceedings on the touchstone of Section 465. Cr. P.C. The error, if any in that order, in our opinion, has not occasioned any failure of justice having regard to the fact that the objection could have been made by the accused on their appearance before the Court and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings i.e. shortly after their appearance in Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1