Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.21 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jarnail Singh & Ors. Etc vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 7 May, 1986
4. This is trite law that even FIR cannot be treated as an encyclopedia. The Apex
Court in (2003) 6 SCC 175 (Superintendent of Police, CBI and others vs. Tapan
Kumar Singh), opined that a First Information Report is not an encyclopedia,
which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported.The same
view is taken in (2009) 9 SCC 719 (Jarnail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab).
The Apex Court held that mentioning of a section in the FIR is not by itself
convincing, as it is for the Court to frame charges having regard to the material on
recordâ.
Prakash Babu Raghuvanshi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 September, 2004
The judgment of Hema Bhadoriya (supra) was passed without
considering the judgment of Supreme Court in Prakash Babu
Raghuvanshi (supra). In the said judgments, this Court has not
considered the aspect of curability of charge. Hence, to that
extent, the said judgments are distinguishable.
Santosh Kumari vs State Of J & K & Ors on 13 September, 2011
In view of the principle laid down by Supreme Court, it can be
safely concluded that if particular of âOrderâ is not
mentioned in the charge, the charge should not be mechanically
set aside. The necessary directions may be issued to specify the
'order' in order to give a clear picture to the accused about the
allegations mentioned against him. This is necessary to attract
section 7 of the EC Act. It being a curable defect may be
permitted to be corrected.
Chandra Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 May, 2014
In (2014) 8 SCC 340 (Chandra
Prakash vs. State of Rajasthan), the Apex Court again opined that
the purpose of framing of charges is that the accused should be
informed with certainty and accuracy of the charge brought
against him. There should not be vagueness. The accused must
know the scope and particulars in detail.
K. Prema S. Rao And Anr vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao And Ors on 25 October, 2002
In K. Prema S. Rao vs. Yadla Srinivasa Rao [(2003) 1 SCC
217], the Apex Court held that mere omission or defect in framing
of charge does not disable the criminal court from convicting the
accused for the offence which is found to have been proved on the
evidence on record.
Dalbir Singh vs State Of U.P on 8 April, 2004
The Apex Court relied on (2004) 5 SCC 334
(Dalbir Singh vs. State of UP); (2009) 6 SCC 372 (State of UP vs.
Paras Nath Singh) and (2009) 12 SCC 546 (Annareddy
Sambasiva Reddy vs. State of AP).
Savita Devi vs State Of M.P. on 2 September, 2015
5. This Court in Savita Devi (supra) opined as under:-
Ankireddy Eswara Reddy S/O Chinna ... vs The State Of A.P. Represented By Public ... on 27 November, 2006
The Apex Court relied on (2004) 5 SCC 334
(Dalbir Singh vs. State of UP); (2009) 6 SCC 372 (State of UP vs.
Paras Nath Singh) and (2009) 12 SCC 546 (Annareddy
Sambasiva Reddy vs. State of AP).