Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.24 seconds)

Rumi Dhar vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 8 April, 2009

19. Even in Rumi Dhar v. State of W.B. [(2009) 6 SCC 364 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1074] , reliance whereupon was placed by the counsel for the appellants, the tests to be applied at the stage of discharge of the accused person under Section 239 CrPC were found to be no different. Far from readily encouraging discharge, the Court held that even a strong suspicion in regard to the commission of the offence would be sufficient to justify framing of charges. The Court observed: (SCC p. 369, para 17) 9 "17. ... While considering an application for discharge filed in terms of Section 239 of the Code, it was for the learned Judge to go into the details of the allegations made against each of the accused persons so as to form an opinion as to whether any case at all has been made out or not as a strong suspicion in regard thereto shall subserve the requirements of law."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 113 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Union Of India vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

20. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 609] where this Court was examining a similar question in the context of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The legal position was summed up as under: (SCC p. 9, para 10) "10. Thus, on a consideration of the authorities mentioned above, the following principles emerge:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 1736 - S M Ali - Full Document
1   2 Next