Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.31 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Appasaheb And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 5 January, 2007
In the decision Appasaheb v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1 (2007) DMC 143, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
Section 161 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Jagganath Choudhary And Ors vs Ramayan Singh And Anr on 9 May, 2002
In the decision, Jagannath Choudhary v. Ramayan Singh, reported in 2002 SCC (Cri) 1181, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of revisional jurisdiction as envisaged under Section 401 is to confer upon superior criminal courts a kind of paternal or supervisory jurisdiction, in order to correct miscarriage of justice arising from misconception of law, irregularity of procedure, neglect of proper precautions or apparent harshness of treatment which has resulted on the one hand in some injury to the due maintenance of law and order, or on the other hand in some undeserved hardship to individuals. The main question which the High Court has to consider in an application in revision is whether substantial justice has been done. If however, the same has been an appeal, the applicant would be entitled to demand an adjudication upon all questions of fact or law which he wished to raise, but in revision, the only question is whether the court should interfere in the interests of justice. Where the court concerned does not appear to have committed any illegality or material irregularity or impropriety in passing the impugned judgment and order, the revision cannot succeed.