| Topics |
Headnote |
Judgement |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
|
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against Acquittal — Reversal — Scope of — Possibility of two views — Duty of the appellate court — should not ordinarily interfere therewith though its view may appear to be the more probable one. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against Acquittal — Reversal — Qualification of — Findings of trial Court — Deficiencies in — Held, if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material — & are against the weight of evidence or are so outrageously in defiance of logic so as to suffer from the vice of irrationality, that interference by the appellate court would be called for. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Interference by appellate Court — Duty of appellate Court — Held, The appellate court should deal with reasons for acquittal & interfere only if acquittal is perverse. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Reversal of acquittal — Held, the reversal is permissible only if the view of the trial court is not only erroneous but also unreasonable and perverse. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Review of evidence — Power of the appellate Court — Held, the appellate court has full power to review the evidence and to reach at its own conclusion. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 378 — Appeal against acquittal — Interference by appellate Court — Duty of appellate Court — Held, the appellate court has to consider the fact that the trial court has the benefit of seeing the witnesses in the witness box & the presumption of innocence is not weakened by the acquittal. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 161 & 162 —Omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. — Held, if the omission appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs — may amount to contradiction —& whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 161 —Statement of witness — Delay in recording — Explanation that the family had to sit for shock meetings for 12 to 13 days — unconvincing explanation — Evidence doubtful — fatal to prosecution. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 161 —Statement of witness — Delay in recording — Held, The Court may rely on such testimony if they are cogent and credible — & the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — Ss 161 —Statement of witness — Evidence Act — S 3 — Relevant fact — Examination of witness — The witnesses were or could be available for examination — Non-examination — would cast a doubt upon the prosecution case. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 293 — FSL Report — tendered by prosecution —Objection by defence — objections kept by Court & fixed for hearing but not decided—Without giving any opportunity of hearing or cross-examine to the accused — & without calling the expert —the Court below considered the said FSL report — Held, the aforesaid facts are suggestive of breach of such a legal position — Fatal to prosecution. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 439 — Regular Bail — Concession of —IPC — S 406, 420, 463, 467, 468, 471— Offences under — Matter settled amicably between the parties— No objection to complainant regarding bail—the deed of compromise executed —substantial part of investigation is over— Charge-sheet not filed — no possibility of tampering with the evidence —no criminal antecedents—Applicants enlarged on regular bail. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 313 — Statement of the accused — Plausible defence —the complainant came from the back side and foisted/thrusted the currency notes in the left side pocket of his shirt — Admission by IO — the pocket of accused’s shirt on its left side was loosened — Held, denotes that force was applied by the complainant while thrusting currency notes in his shirt pocket—Acquittal —PC Act — S 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) & 7. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 227 — Discharge of accused —IPC — S 306 — Abetment of suicide — Threat by accused — to remove the victim from service — No execution of threat — Redressal remedies like filing a complaint before the appropriate authority available but not availed by victim — Nothing mentioned regarding alleged threats in leave application, put up subsequently —No material of intentional aiding to commit suicide — Prosecution not based on the theory of intentional aiding — Essential ingredient of 'instigation' not fulfilled —no sufficient grounds for proceeding further— Discharged. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 227 — Discharge of accused —IPC — S 306 — Abetment of suicide — Charge framed — Evidence of witnesses — they were told by the deceased that he was removed from service on the say of the accused —the deceased was very much in service — nothing to show any apprehension or apprehension of such degree which led to commit suicide— petitioner discharged. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 204 —Issue of process — Managing Director of a company — Prosecution of —No averments in the complaint that the accused is in charge and responsible to the company for the conduct and business of the company — Order not sustainable. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 204 —Issue of process — In-charge of a company — Determining of — Duty of the Court — Held, It is not the name by which the person is called but the position he occupies and the functions and duties which he discharges that determines — whether infact, he is in-charge of and responsible to the company or not — Companies Act, 1956 —Section 2(26). |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
CrPC — S 197 — Previous sanction — Limitations of — Held, the protection is available only when the alleged act of the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty — the protection is not merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Interpretation of Statute — Procedural law — CrPC — S 197 — Protection under — Object of — The protection is to protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants—State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and others vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew —referred. |
PDF |
| CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 |
Interpretation of Statute — Procedural law — CrPC — S 197 — Protection under — Qualification of — it must be shown that the official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties — It is not the duty which requires examination so much as the act — The act must fall within the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned — It is the quality of the act which is important —State of Orissa Through Kumar Raghvendra Singh and others vs. Ganesh Chandra Jew —referred. |
PDF |