CR.P.C.
CASE
LAWS
The State of Bihar vs Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors. AIR 2001 Supreme Court 429 Attiq-Ur-Rehman Vs.Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anotherAIR1996SC1267 Thomas DanaVs.The State of PunjabAIR1959SC375 Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador and Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors.2013(1)SCALE462 Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patelvs.The State of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2001SC567 In Re_ Sikandarkhan Mahomedkhan 1920(22)BOMLR200 EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji NarangikarAIR1931Bom313
Praphakar Vs. The State of Maha 2012 Cri.L.J.4726 Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567 Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567 Shidlingappa GurulingappaVs.EmperorAIR1926Bom416 Chatar Singh vs State Of M.P.AIR2007SC319 Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and anr Vs. the State of Maharashtra 1994(2) Bom C.R.219 Emperor vs Piru Rama Havaldar27 BOMLR 1371 Jagat Bahadur Singh Jagat Bahadur SinghVs.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 945
Cr.P.C. S.2(d) Charge sheet by RPF officer for offence under Railway Property Act can be treated as complaint of the the RPF Cr.P.C. S.4 In absence of special court the regular court can try the offence Cr.P.C. S.4 The words Punishment and Penalty are explained in Cr.P.C. S.4 Union Govt was directed to constitute special court Cr.P.C. S.4(2) When the special statute does not prescribe procedure Cr.P.C. is applicable Cr.P.C. S.9 Additional Sessions Judge can hear appeal Cr.P.C. S.9(3) 194 and 409 Assistant and Additional Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction of Sessions Court but they they are separate Courts Cr.P.C. S.28 Assistant Sessions Judge should not be allotted with case punishable with more than 10 years Cr.P.C. S.29 and S.138 NI Act Magistrate has no pecuniary limit for compensation Cr.P.C. S.29 Magistrate has no pecuniary limit for compensation Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate fine should be considered for the purpose of appeal Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate sentence not to exceed 14 years when consecutive SC says Cr.P.C. S.31 and 427(1) Accused convicted in 3 cases His sentence of 22 years brought down by giving concurrence in two cases Cr.P.C. S.31 and IPC S.71 separate sentences are subject to the provisions of Section 71, Indian Penal Code Cr.P.C. S.31 Appellate court can inflict the Trial Court's limited punishment only
The State of Bihar vs Chandra Bhushan Singh & Ors. AIR 2001 Supreme Court 429 Attiq-Ur-Rehman Vs.Municipal Corporation of Delhi and anotherAIR1996SC1267 Thomas DanaVs.The State of PunjabAIR1959SC375 Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador and Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI) and Ors.2013(1)SCALE462 Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patelvs.The State of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2001SC567 In Re_ Sikandarkhan Mahomedkhan 1920(22)BOMLR200 EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji NarangikarAIR1931Bom313
Praphakar Vs. The State of Maha 2012 Cri.L.J.4726 Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567 Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567 Shidlingappa GurulingappaVs.EmperorAIR1926Bom416 Chatar Singh vs State Of M.P.AIR2007SC319 Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and anr Vs. the State of Maharashtra 1994(2) Bom C.R.219 Emperor vs Piru Rama Havaldar27 BOMLR 1371 Jagat Bahadur Singh Jagat Bahadur SinghVs.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 945
Cr.P.C. S.2(d) Charge sheet by RPF officer for offence under Railway Property Act can be treated as complaint of the the RPF Cr.P.C. S.4 In absence of special court the regular court can try the offence Cr.P.C. S.4 The words Punishment and Penalty are explained in Cr.P.C. S.4 Union Govt was directed to constitute special court Cr.P.C. S.4(2) When the special statute does not prescribe procedure Cr.P.C. is applicable Cr.P.C. S.9 Additional Sessions Judge can hear appeal Cr.P.C. S.9(3) 194 and 409 Assistant and Additional Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction of Sessions Court but they they are separate Courts Cr.P.C. S.28 Assistant Sessions Judge should not be allotted with case punishable with more than 10 years Cr.P.C. S.29 and S.138 NI Act Magistrate has no pecuniary limit for compensation Cr.P.C. S.29 Magistrate has no pecuniary limit for compensation Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate fine should be considered for the purpose of appeal Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate sentence not to exceed 14 years when consecutive SC says Cr.P.C. S.31 and 427(1) Accused convicted in 3 cases His sentence of 22 years brought down by giving concurrence in two cases Cr.P.C. S.31 and IPC S.71 separate sentences are subject to the provisions of Section 71, Indian Penal Code Cr.P.C. S.31 Appellate court can inflict the Trial Court's limited punishment only
Reg.Vs.Tukaya Bin TamanaILR1875 1 Bom 214
Cr.P.C. S.31 For S.457 and 380 IPC Sentence may be either for both or for one but should not greater Sunil Anandrao Sawant vs Government Of Cr.P.C. S.31 Separate sentence to run Maharashtra 2010CriLJ3579 consecutive after life has been discussed Nanak ChandVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is PunjabAIR1955SC274 explained detention D.K. Basu Vs State of West Cr.P.C. S.41 and Constitution A.21 Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610 Directions w.r.t. arrest and R.P. VaghelaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.41 and Contempt of Courts Act Gujarat2002CriLJ3082 S.10 Mere handcuffing without prior permission, in justifiable circumstances does not amount to contempt Afak Shabbir Khan vs The State Of Cr.P.C. S.41 Mentioning reasons in the arrest Maharashtra & Anr panchanama is held sufficient compliance of 2013BomCR(Cri)242(DB) recording reasons for arrest Arnesh KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.41(1) and 41A and S.498A of IPC BiharAIR2014SC2756 Directions to police and Magistrates ManikandanVs.S. I. of Police, P olice, Nallalam Cr.P.C. S.41(1)(d) Accused needs to bailed Police Stn2008CriLJ1338 or not is discussed Joginder KumarVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.56(1) Magistrate to ensure Ors.(1994)4SCC260 compliance of directions given Jayendragiri Anandgiri Cr.P.C. S.57 Accused in NCB custody GoswamiVs.Narcotics Control Bureau and arrested in another crime should be produced Anr.2005CriLJ3190 before magistrate within 24 hours Gajanan P. Lasure Vs. The Director Cr.P.C. S.57 and deemed suspension of General of Police and ors 2009(4) accused public servant Mh.L.J.399 Raghuvansh Dewanchand BhasinVs.State Cr.P.C. S.70 and 71 No Arrest on cancelled of Maharashtra and AnrAIR2011SC3393 warrant. Warrant register be maintained State Through Cbi vs Dawood Ibrahim I brahim Cr.P.C. S.73 Warrant can be issued before Kaskar AIR1997SC2494 charge sheet and for investigation purpose Shaikh RahemanVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.79 Magistrate can issue warrant for Maharashtra1991(1)BomCR263 execution beyond his local jurisdiction M.P. Sharma and Ors.Vs.Satish Cr.P.C. S.93 and 94 Search and Seizure from ChandraAIR1954SC300 accused not violative of fundamental rights State of GujaratVs.Shyamlal Mohanlal Cr.P.C. S.94 is not applicable to accused Choksi MANU-SC-0383-1964 State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal Cr.P.C. S.94(1) Power to issue summons to Choksi AIR 1965 SC 1251 produce document is not applicable to accused
Pravinsingh and anotherVs.Biharilal Singh Cr.P.C. S.97 Search can be conducted in a and another 1989 Cri LJ 1386) (Bom) place other than mentioned in warrant warrant State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and Cr.P.C. S.100 and S.27 Evi Act Witnesses Another, 2001 Cri.L.J. 504 not required Khet SinghVsUnion of India Cr.P.C. S.100 Seizure panchanama prepared (UOI)AIR2002SC1450 at customs office instead of spot did not cause prejudice Hence relied State Of Maharashtra & Ors.Vs.Sudhir Cr.P.C. S.100 Whether immovable property Vasant Karnataki Etc. Etc.MANU-SCORis included or not referred to larger bench 47069-2014 State Govt. of NCT of DelhiVs.Sunil and Cr.P.C. S.100(5) and Evi Act S.27 Witnesses Another2001CriLJ504 is not required Bombay HC Full bench Sudhir Vasant Cr.P.C. S.102(1) Property does not include KarnatakiVs.The State of Maharashtra immovable property 2011 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 326 _ 2011 ALL MR (Cri) 96 Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.103 Applicable to search of a place AIR1956SC411 and not of a person. Hence, independent witnesses not necessary Suresh NandaVs.C.B.I.AIR2008SC1414 Cr.P.C. S.104 Passport can be impounded by Passport Authority and not by Police The State of Maharashtra and Cr.P.C. S.107 and 116 No provision to ask Anr.Vs.Mangali Dewaiyya for interim bond Pupalla1994MhLJ483 Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.107 and 123 No interim bond and Maharashtra2006(5)MhLj243 CJM reduced bond Pramila Navin ShahVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.107 No provision to ask for interim Maharashtra & bond Ors2005(15)CriminalCC1051 Dattatraya Mahadu TikkalVs.The TikkalVs.The State State of Cr.P.C. S.107 Sessions Judge has to interfere Maharashtra2014(1)BomCR(Cri)439 if action is illegal Pravin Vijaykumar Taware,Vs.The Special Cr.P.C. S.116 Training to Executive Executive Magistrate Magistrates directed by High Court 2009(111)BOMLR3166 Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.123(2) and (3) CJM exercised Maharashtra, 2006(5)MhLj243 jurisdiction Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim Cr.P.C. S.125 and S.3 of MWPOD Act AIR 1997 SC 3280 Rights of mior children and unmarried daughter are protected Mohd. Ahmed KhanVs.Shah Bano Begum Cr.P.C. S.125 applicable to Muslim divorced and OrsAIR1985SC945 women also
Allabuksh Karim ShaikhVs.Smt. Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh and another1994MhLJ1376 Smt. Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs.Smt. Chandrakalabai Polshetwar 2009(4)MhLj665 Nandlal Wasudeo BadwaikVs.Lata Nandlal Badwaik and Anr.AIR2014SC932 Bakulabai and Anr.Vs.Gangaram and Anr.(1988)1SCC537 Jaiminiben Hirenbhai VyasVs.Hirenbhai Rameshchandra VyasDecided On_ 19.11.2014 Jagdish JugtawatVs.Manju Lata and Ors.(2002)5SCC422 Shivaji Baburao Bhabad @ Bhawad Vs.Sau. Alka Shivaji Bhabad Criminal Writ Petition No. 955 of 2009 decided on 14.01.2010 Jagir SinghVs.Ranbir Singh and Anr.AIR1979SC381 Chinnappaiyan ChellandiVs.Chinnathayee Chinnappaiyan2010(1)Crimes835 Sau. Manda R. Thaore Vs. Sh. Ramaji Ghanshyam Thaore Criminal Revision Application No. 317-2006Decided On_ 20.04.2010 Syed Mohsin Ali Syed Shaukat AliVs.Smt. Noorus Saher MANU-MH-0996-2005 Savitaben Somabhai BhatiyaVs.State of Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC1809 Shantha @ Ushadevi and Anr.Vs.B.G. ShivananjappaAIR2005SC2410
Rajesh Bhiwaji NandeVs.State of Maharashtra and Ors.2005(2)MhLj977 Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273
Cr.P.C. S.125 application for muslim child is tenable Cr.P.C. S.125 Daughter in law was directed to maintain mother in law Cr.P.C. S.125 DNA Test prevails over the presumption Cr.P.C. S.125 Illegitimate child is entitled for maintenance Cr.P.C. S.125 Judgment shall contain reasons for finding for grant of maintenance from the date of application Cr.P.C. S.125 Maintenance by Family Court to major daughter was upheld Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son is not entitled for maintenance
Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son though student is not entitled for maintenance from father Cr.P.C. S.125 Permission granted to amend petition Cr.P.C. S.125 Second wifes maintenance rejected but compensation granted in revision
Cr.P.C. S.125 Talaq must be for reasonable cause and be preceded by attempts at reconciliation Cr.P.C. S.125 Woman married by Hindu man having living spouse is not entitled for mainteance Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive applications are unnecessary and Limitation is not barred when the arrears upto date are included by interim application Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive orders of one month imprisonment upheld Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery defence not applicable after divorce
Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273 Gita Vs. Chandrasekhar
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery not applicable to divorcee Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Divorced on cruelty ground is till entitled for maintenance Cr.P.C. S.125(4) includes adultery by divorced wife
M. Chinna KaruppasamyVs.Kanimozhi2015ALLMR( Cri)615 Chanda Preetam WadateVs.Preetam Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Isolated instance of adultery Ganpatrao Wadate 2002(2)MhLj482 is not sufficient to deny maintenance Vanamala (Smt)Vs.H.M. Ranganatha Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Wife does not include Bhatta(1995)5SCC299 divorcee Ashok Yeshwant SamantVs.Smt. Suparna Cr.P.C. S.127(1) Precondition to deposit Ashok Samant and another1991CriLJ766 arrears cannot be put Ahmed Noormohmed BhattiVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.151 is not ultravires merely Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC2115 because it can be misused Rajesh Ramrao Raut Vs. The State of Cr.P.C. S.151(3)_ Maharashtra and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.154 and 156(3) If the offence is Anr.2013CriLJ776 same there cannot be two FIRs. Magistrate can treat application as a complaint Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (Govt. of N.C.T. Cr.P.C. S.154 and 177 The IO can forward of Delhi)AIR1999SC3596 the FIR to the police station having jurisdiction if the offence was beyond own jurisdictiono UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada Cr.P.C. S.154 and 198A Police can and Ors.2012ACR1859 investigate S.494 with 498A of IPC as S.498A is cognizable GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and Cr.P.C. S.154 and 354 The person who anr.AIR2014SC1198 lodges the FIR be called the Informant and not the Complainant M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Cr.P.C. S.154 FIR reasonableness or Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822, Credibility of the said information is not a condition precedent for registration of a case BabubhaiVs.State of Gujarat and Cr.P.C. S.154 For deciding tenability of two Ors.(2010)12SCC254 FIRs sameness test should be applied Ashi Devi and Ors.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.154 In a 9 years old theft case held Delhi)MANU-SC-0526-2014 that mere delay itself is not a ground to discard a case Gosu Jayarami Reddy Vs. State of A.P. Cr.P.C. S.154 Overwriting limited to (2011) 11 SCC 766 converting 4 to 5 in FIR is immaterial.
GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and anr.2014(11)SCALE541 Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta and etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486
KumariVs.Govt. of U.P. and Ors.2014CriLJ470 Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of Goa2009CriLJ4655
Mrs. Charu Kishor MehtaVs.State of Maharashtra and Addl. Commissioner of PoliceDecided On_ 00.11.2010 Sone Lal And Ors AIR 1978 SC 1142 Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486 Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822
Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614 Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614 State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors1992 AIR 604 Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of Goa2009CriLJ4655
Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra PradeshAIR1965SC1185
Cr.P.C. S.154 Person who lodges FIR is called Informant and who files complaint is called complainant Cr.P.C. S.154 Police cannot refuse to register the F.I.R. under the pretext of preliminary inquiry when cognizable offences are made out Cr.P.C. S.154 Police is bound to register F.I.R. Lalita Cr.P.C. S.154 police officer going to the place of occurrence to make some survey does not amount to making an investigation doc. Cr.P.C. S.154 Police shall register FIR instead of ignoring as civil dispute Cr.P.C. S.154 Recording FIR is an official act and has such presumption Cr.P.C. S.154 Reliability genuineness and credibility of the information are not the conditions precedent Mrs. Cr.P.C. S.154 Cr.P.C. S.154 Sections 195 and 340 do not come in the way of investigation by police. On the basis of such investigation the Court can file a complaint Cr.P.C. S.154 There cannot be two FIRs of the same person of same incident Cr.P.C. S.154 When a FIR is already there sameness test shall be used for the subsequent FIRs Cr.P.C. S.154 When can the Court pass appropriate orders Cr.P.C. S.154 When information was cryptic the police officer going to the place of occurrence to make some survey is not an investigation Cr.P.C. S.155 Police can investigate a noncognizable offence under EC Act along with S.420 IPC
Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra1986MhLJ986 Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra-MH-0633-2006 State of Maharashtra vs. Dharmendra Ambar Mohite (10.09.1998 - BOMHC) MukhedkarVs.The State of Maharashtra,1983CriLJ1833 Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen Jagdevrao Deshmuk 2008CriLJ376 Atul Son of Shridhar KapleVs.State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer2011 113 BOMLR1549 Sakiri VasuState of U.P. and others and other cases MANY CASES Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra PradeshAIR1965SC1185
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) and (3) Once permission is obtained the procedure applicable to cognazable offences is applicable Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Obtaining Magistrate's permission is necessary Cr.P.C. S.155(2) permission was not obtained Hence prosecution for offence of S.145 Police Act was held untenable Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Prosecution for S.124 of Bom Police Act quashed for want of permission Avinash Madhukar Cr.P.C. S.156 and 397 156(3) of Cr.PC merely mean that an alleged cognizable offence should be investigated Cr.P.C. S.156 S.173(3) and s.190(1)(c).
Cr.P.C. S.156
Cr.P.C. S.156(1) and 173 Police officer can investigate E.C. Act offence along with S.420 Sheshrao and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(1) Charge sheet quashed for Maharashtra and Ors.24.07.2015 want of jurisdiction Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (1999)8SCC728 Cr.P.C. S.156(2) Police can investigate any cognizable offence and to submit charge sheet before competent court Alpic Finance Ltd.vsP. Sadasivan and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and IPC S.420 It must also Anr.AIR2001SC1226 be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of commission of the offence Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali @ Deepak and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 173(8) Kinds of order Ors. 2013CriLJ754 under S.156(3) are (i) Initial Investigation, (ii) Further Investigation, (iii) Fresh or de novo or re-investigation-Detail Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Passing order of Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs) S.156(3) or Search Warrant is not taking Cognizance (R.R. Chari etc followed )Gopal Das Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Taking Cognizance Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Assam and on complaint means verification etc. Anr.1961CriLJ39
Nirmaljit Singh HoonVs.The State of West BengalAIR1972SC2639
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Cognizance means not mere applying mind but for the purpose of proceeding under S.200 and following privisions SachinVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Magistrate has Maharashtra2014ALLMR(Cri)1833 discretion to reject the prayer and direct for verification etc. Ramdev Food Products Private LimitedVs. Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 202 No arrest in State of Gujarat2015(3)SCALE622 investigation of S.202 Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 397 Accused shall be Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363 impleaded in a revision against order refusing S.156 Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 398 Interference in Jagdevrao Deshmuk2008CriLJ3761 revision should be in exceptional cases Vasanti DubeyVs.State ofMadhya Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.7 P.C. Act Pradesh2012CriLJ1309 Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. Vs. . Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.195 and S.341 Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul. 2012 Magistrate can order S.156(3) and after Bom C R(Cri) 375 investigation he can file complaint Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.397 Direction by Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761 sessions judge for sending signature to the expert set aside U.P. HC in Chandrika SinghVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) application can be treated as U.P2007CriLJ3169 complaint Mrs Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Application should be of UP & Ors2015 (96) SCC 287 supported by affidavit Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Before the order Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761 complainant cannot be asked to call experto to prove forgery Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Complainant should not be Anr.AIR2006SC705 examined before order under this section Srinivas Gundluri and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Difference of s.156(3) and Ors.Vs.SEPCO(2010)8SCC206 202 Cr.P.C. Mere direction to file charge sheet not illegal Upkar SinghVs.Ved Prakash and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Direction to register counter Ors.AIR2004SC4320 FIR is valid Madhubala Vs. Sureshkumar Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Format of order AIR1997SC3104 Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate can treat an Anr.2013CriLJ776 application as a complaint In more than one FIRs sameness test has to be applied
CBI Central Bureau Of Investigation vs State Of Gujarat MANU-GJ-0573-2001 Central Bureau of Investigation through S.P., Jaipurvs.State of Rajasthan & Anr.AIR2001SC668 K. SelvarajVs.The Superintendent of Police and The Inspector of Police Sachin Raosaheb Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra Justice Nalawade
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct the CBI investigation
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion not to refer to police and to inquire himself into the application Sukhwasi son of Hulasi Vs. State of Uttar Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion to Pradesh 2008 Cri.L.J.472 send or not to send for investigation Nilesh Daulatrao LakhaniVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No cognizance on police Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757 report after first directing for inquiry R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No order to CBI by 1117 Magistrate Blue Dart Express Ltd.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order after verification was Maharashtra2011(2)Crimes46 set aside and directed to proceed Yogiraj Vasantrao SurveVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order can be challenged in Maharashtra2013ALLMR(Cri)2059 Revision R.R. Chari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Order does not amount to AIR 1951 SC 207 taking cognizance 3 Judges Bench Basanthi Sarkar and Ors.Vs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order in S.193 IPC offence Bengal and Ors.MANU-WB-0218-2010 upheld by Kolkata HC General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order is not taking Anr.AIR2012SC1890 cognizance Shivaji Vithalrao Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Orders interference by BhikaneVs.Chandrasen2008CriLJ3761 superior Courts normally be in very exceptional circumstances Ajit Ramrao Thete and others Vs. the State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Original Complaint and of Maharashtra and another Bombay (DB) order should be retained in Court Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Petition's Format and Anr.2006(1)KLJ380 nomenclature is not material It can be treated as complaint Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police investigation may Ors.Vs.State of Karnataka and start with registration of FIR while in other Ors.AIR2012SC2326 cases (CBI, etc.), an inquiry may lead to registration of an FIR Laxminarayan Vishwanath AryaThe State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police need not seek of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector of permission of Magistrate to arrest accused Police and Ors.Vs.2008CriLJ1
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam Sundaram Promoters (P) L and Anr.(2009)2SCC363 Karnataka HC Sri. B.V. Acharya, Vs.Sri. N. Venkateshaiah Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani, Vs.The State of Maharashtra 2010 Cri.L.J. 2723 Pinni Co-op Housing Society and others Maruti Mathu Gaikwad and others Bom DB dd on 02.07.2013CRAPPLN463510 Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.AIR2008SC907 Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.(2008)5SCC668 Rasiklal Dalpatram ThakkarVs.State of Gujarat and Ors.AIR2010SC715 Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai ButaniVs.The State of Maharashtra2010CriLJ2723 (2009) 6 SCC 576
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Refusing direction for investigation and direction for verification and statements is taking cognizance Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Sanction needed for even order under section Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Simplicitor application without FIR is tenable Cr.P.C. S.156(3) This section cannot be resorted to after direction to put up for verification Cr.P.C. S.156(3) When can Magistrate Monitor investigation Cr.P.C. S.156(3) While passing the order the Magistrate has to apply mind Cr.P.C. S.156(5) and 181(4) Jurisdiction to be of the JMFC and not of the PSO Cr.P.C. S.156(6) Application without prior F.I.R. tenable Cr.P.C. S.156(6) No inherent power to recall order State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance Cr.P.C. S.157 No statutory bar to the and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil informant-police officer for taking up the Nadu vs. V. Jayapaul (22.03.2004 investigation SC)(2004)5SCC223 The State of Uttar PradeshVs.Bhagwant Cr.P.C. S.157 and PC Act Investigation can Kishore JoshiAIR1964SC221 be started on information or otherwise means without FIR S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Cr.P.C. S.159 does not enable Magistrate to Ors.AIR1970SC786 stop investigation S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Cr.P.C. S.159 Gives limited power to Ors.AIR1970SC786 Magistrate to direct investigate proceed himself but no power to stop investigation S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and Cr.P.C. S.159 Meant to give Magistrate the Ors.AIR1970SC786 power of directing investigation where the police decide not to investigate the case under the proviso to Section 157(1) Ashok DebbarmaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.161 and 154 Omission to name Tripura(2014)4SCC747 accused when he was part of group is not fatal State of N.C.T. of Cr.P.C. S.161 and 162 and Evi Act S.145 DelhiVs.Mukesh(2013)2SCC58 Statement on TV channel subsequent to
Mahesh Janardhan GonnadeVs.State of Maharashtra(2008)13SCC271 Ashok Debbarma @ Achak DebbarmaVs.State of Tripura (2014)4SCC747 State of GujaratVs.Kathi Ramku Aligbhai1986CriLJ239
State of U.P.Vs.M.K. AnthonyAIR1985SC48. AnthonyAIR1985SC48 Nirpal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of HaryanaAIR1977SC1066 Gujarat High Court Full Bench Nathu ManchhuVs.The State of Gujarat1978CriLJ448 SureshVs.The State of Maharashtra (DB) Decided On_ 31.10.2014 Md. Ankoos and Ors.Vs.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. AIR2010SC566 Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of Punjab(2012)11SCC205
State of Kerala Vs.Babu & OrsAIR1999SC2161 Mr. Prakash VernekarVs.State of Goa2007CriLJ4649 Mr. Prakash Vernekar Vs. State of Goa 2007 Cri.L.J. 4649 Pakala Narayana SwamiVs.EmperorAIR1939PC47
Khatri and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar and Ors.AIR1981SC1068
charge sheet is not covered Bipin Panchal distinguished Cr.P.C. S.161 and 164 Testimony of I.O. and Spl Judl. Magi. cannot be disbelieved and discredited Cr.P.C. S.161 Every omission is not contradiction Cr.P.C. S.161 Inadmissible portions in the panchana should be marked by the APP and excluded by the Juge and How to appreciate witnesses Cr.P.C. S.161 Signature of witness does not render evidence inadmissible Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement of witness need not be there in inquest panchanama Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement reading over to witness does not make his evidence inadmissible Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement should not be read over to the witness by the police Cr.P.C. S.161(3) Statement cannot be used
Cr.P.C. S.161_ In view of exception of S.162(2) to S.161, statement of accused under S.27 Evi Act need not be signed by accused. Cr.P.C. S.162 and 161 and 91 Magistrate can call case diary of another case Cr.P.C. S.162 and 452 and S.27 not barred for deciding custody of muddemal Cr.P.C. S.162 and S.27 Statement is not barred for deciding custody of muddemal Cr.P.C. S.162 Any confession made to a police officer in course of investigation whether a discovery is made or not is excluded Cr.P.C. S.162 Bar is not applicable in civil or other proceeding
Tahsildar Singh and Anr.Vs.The State of Uttar PradeshAIR1959SC1012 Ramkishan Mithanlal SharmaVs.The State of BombayAIR1955SC104 George & Ors vs State Of Kerala (1998) 4 SCC 605 State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna 2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98 (2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98)
AIR1981SC1165
The State of MaharashtraVs.Prakash Dhawal Khairnar1997BomCR(Cri)367 Dhananjaya Reddy etc.vs.State of KarnatakaAIR2001SC1512 Abdul Razak ShaikhVs.State of Maharashtra1987MhLJ863 Abdul_Razak_Shaikh_vs_State_Of_Mahar ashtra_on_7_August,_1987 State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna2014ALLMR(Cri)4484(2014)8S CC913 State Of Maharashtra vs Sharad B. Sarda1983 (1) BomCR 578 Bom. HC Abdul Wahid Vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August 1991 Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and Ors.Vs.State of Maharashtra and The Superintendent of Prison2004CriLJ4312 Kum. Shraddha Meghshyam Velhal Vs State of Maharashtra State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494
Cr.P.C. S.162 Contradictions an omissions Cr.P.C. S.162 covers statements to police during TIP Cr.P.C. S.162 Statement of I.O. in the inquest what he saw is admissible Cr.P.C. S.164 and IPC S.376 Directions to Police and Magistrates
Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.30 Evi Act Recording confession by other than jurisdiction Magistrate upheld Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.80 Evidence Act SC says Magistrate need not be examined Madi Ganga Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession without signature of accused inadmissible Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused is mandatory Bom. DB Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused on confession Mandatory Cr.P.C. S.164 statement of victim girl should not be disclosed to any person till final report
Cr.P.C. S.167 60th or 90th day though holiday cannot be excluded Cr.P.C. S.167 After charge sheet bail under section 436 or 437 only Cr.P.C. S.167 Allowing Home Food is in disreation of Magistrate Cr.P.C. S.167 and 4 and POCSO Act JFCM has no jurisdiction to remand take cognizance and commit under PCSO Act Cr.P.C. S.167 and 309 If accused was not arrested till taking cognizance his remand can be granted
In Re_ Jakir Khan @ JakerMANU-WB0253-2012 Tamizharasi and another Vs.Assistant Director, Narcotic Control Bureau1996CriLJ208 Bom HC Daji_Govind_Kamble_vs_State_Of_Mahar ashtra Bom. HC B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of ... vs Leidomann Heinrich And Another on 20 November, 1990 CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994 Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir KasabVs.State of MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565 Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar AIR1981SC928 G.K._Moopanar,_M.L.A._And_Others_vs _State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_16_March,_19 90 Prasad V.Vs.State of KeralaILR2013(2)Kerala1010 Arnesh KumarVs.State of Bihar AIR2014SC2756.
Cr.P.C. S.167 and 437 Transit Remand granted by rejecting bail Cr.P.C. S.167 and NDPS Act
Cr.P.C. S.167 and S.36 of NDPS Act Magistrate remanded for more than 15 days Cr.P.C. S.167 bail in serious offences NDPS can be cancelled Cr.P.C. S.167 Cr.P.C. S.167 For S.304B of IPC 90 days SC Rajeev Chowdhary case referred Cr.P.C. S.167 for TADA offences Cr.P.C. S.167 Free legal aid should be provided from the stage of remand Cr.P.C. S.167 Free Legal aid to be given at remand stage Cr.P.C. S.167
Cr.P.C. S.167 in POCSO Act offence Magistrate can entertain first remand Cr.P.C. S.167 In S.498A IPC the Magistrate authorising detention without recording reasons is liable for departmental action Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... Cr.P.C. S.167 Limitation is 60 days for 10 _vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20 years imprisonment 06 Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate and Judges shall SCC (1) 627 inform accused about free legal aid Harihar Chaitanya vs State Of U.P.1990 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate can differ with the CriLJ 2082 I.O. Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben Vs. Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate has to look into State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 2013 SC 313 facts before granting remand Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate is under obligation SCC (1) 627 to inform availability of free legal aid Free Legal aid
Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563 StateVs. Santokh SinghAIR43 1956 Madhya Pradesh 13 CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni (1992)3SCC141
Rajeev Chowdhary case referred Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... _vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20 06 Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 Devender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana 2010CriLJ3849
Cr.P.C. S.167 Cr.P.C. S.167 No police custody of imprisoned accused Cr.P.C. S.167 PCR should be within the first Fifteen days only and that period cannot be extended under any circumstances Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 60 days for S.395 and 366 IPC Bom
Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 90 days for S.304B IPC Cr.P.C. S.167 Police custody can be in the first 15 days only. Cancellation of bail set aside NarainVs.Superintendent, Central Jail, Cr.P.C. S.167 Remand in absence of accused New DelhiAIR1971SC178 who is not produced from jail is not illegal Raj Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 Right to bail is defeated if not Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563 availed already AIR 1986 Raj 58 (FB) Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 CJM has district jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 Rajastan FB CJM has district jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C Arnesh KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 Supreme Court directions BiharAIR2014SC2756 regarding arrested accused State of WB Vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007 Cr.P.C. S.167 Surrender is different from SC 1801 production by police State of Maharashtra and Ors.Vs.Saeed Cr.P.C. S.167 Transfer of Under prisoners to Sohail Sheikh etc.AIR2013SC168 other jails is subject to Judicial order Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Director General Cr.P.C. S.167 Transit Remand Of Police1996 (2) ALT 138 AP High Court Rajeev_Chaudhary_vs_State_(N.C.T.)_Of_ Cr.P.C. S.167(2( Delhi_on_4_May,_2001 Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Rathin Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Absconding accused Dandapat and Ors.2015(9)SCALE120 arrested after charge sheet can be remanded to PCR
Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of MaharashtraAIR1993SC1 Sajid Basir ShaikhVs.State of Maharashtra2005(3)MhLj860 Bashir And Others vs State Of HaryanaBashir and Ors.Vs.State of HaryanaAIR1978SC55 B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of CustomsVs.Mohmed Azan Khan and others 1990MhLJ582 Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State, GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 Union of India (UOI)Vs.Thamisharasi and Ors.(1995)4SCC190 Union of India (UOI)Vs.Nirala YadavAIR2014SC3036 B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of ... vs Leidomann Heinrich And Another 1991 CriLJ 552 AnilkumarVs.State of Maharashtra1990CriLJ2058 Bashir_And_Others_vs_State_Of_Haryana _on_3_October,_1977 Central Bureau of Investigation Vs Anupam J. Kulkarni AIR1992SC1768 Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors.Vs.State of Andhra PradeshAIR1986SC2130 Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Accused released on default ground cannot be arrested on only count of filing of charge sheet Cr.P.C. S.167(2) After charge sheet Right of accused is defeated if he fails to exercise Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and 437 Mere filing of charge sheet not sufficient to cancel bail Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and NDPS Act Limit of 15 days is for police custody and not for other agency custody Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and S.4(2)_ Magistrate has jurisdiction to remand in Customs Act case Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and Unlawful Activities Act S.43D Magistrate has to grant default bail after the 90 days under Unlawful Activities Act Cr.P.C. S.167(2) appicable to accused produced by other than police Cr.P.C. S.167(2) applicable to NDPS Act Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Application filed for default bail cannot be rejected due to filing of charge sheet before decision of bail application Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cancelled by sessions court under section 439(2) in NDPS Case Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cannot be cancelled on mere count of filing charge sheet leter on Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Date of production before magistrate is starting point Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Entry in diary in not a sine quo non Cr.P.C. S.167(2) For S.306 IPC period for filing chargesheet against UTP is 60 days
State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439 Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar Barkaji Matre and others S.167 CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227 Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State, GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660 Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775 Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr.Vs.Central Bureau of InvestigationAIR2009SC2763 Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Ors.Vs.State of GujaratI(2015)CCR321(SC) Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State, GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660 Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs.Home Secretary, State of Bihar, PatnaAIR1979SC1369 Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of MaharashtraAIR1993SC1 Sajid Basir Shaikh vs SOM2005 (3) MhLJ 860 Umashanker_And_Ors._vs_State_Of_Mad hya_Pradesh Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266 Shakil Khan Yasin KhanVs.The State of Maharashtra MANU-MH-0047-2014 Rajeev Chaudharyvs.State (N.C.T.) of DelhiAIR2001SC2369 Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar Barkaji Matre and others S.167 CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227 Rajeev Chaudhary case A Comment Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) From charge sheet till committal it is inquiry Cr.P.C. S.167(2) If charge sheet is not filed in time explanation of IO to be called Cr.P.C. S.167(2) in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is applicable to accused arrested under FERA Act Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is not applicable to offences under TOHO Act as it provides for complaint only Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate has to judicially scrutinise circumstances and if satisfied order police custody Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate kept application undecided till charge sheet Held accused is entitled for bail Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate shall inform the accused about the right to free legal aid and to provide it Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Merits not be considered Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Not indefeasible Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Pending bail application allowed Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306 IPC Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306 IPC Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.386 IPC as punishment does not exceed 10 years Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 90 days for S.304B IPC Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Procedure to be followed by Magistrate Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Remand under FERA Act permissible
Palanisamy @ PalaniVs.State rep. by Inspector of Police2003-1-LW(Crl)239 Uday Mohanlal Acharyavs.State of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC1 910 Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand JainVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr.(2013)3SCC77 Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... _vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20 06 Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home Secretary, State of Bihar, PatnaAIR1979SC1377 Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh MishraAIR1968SC117 Rameshbhai Jagjivan Vora Authorised Signatory of Gaekwad Vs.State of Gujarat and Ors.2010GLH(2)588 Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh MishraAIR1968SC117
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Sanction is not part of investigation Magistrate cannot refuse charge sheet Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Cr.P.C. S.167(2) When Charge sheet is filed and Sanction awaited Hence no bail Cr.P.C. S.167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days for 10 years offence Cr.P.C. S.167(5) Two options
Cr.P.C. S.169 and 173 Magistrate cannot direct police to file charge sheet Cr.P.C. S.169 application before magistrate is not tenable GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate cannot direct police to file charge sheet Mohd. Rafique Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate does not come in Maharashtra 2013 Bom.C.R.(Cri) 251 picture under this section MarotiVs.The State of Maharashtra and Cr.P.C. S.169 Mere report without final Ors.2015(4)BomCR(Cri)504 report under S.173 is not tenable Mohd. RafiqueVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.169 report before Magistration is Maharashtra2013BomCR(Cri)251 not tenable MarotiVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.169 Report is report of action taken MaharashtraDecided On_ 04.02.2015 by IO and not final report Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.169 Report received regarding Orissa & Anr (2009)9SCC538 some accused. Court can direct investigation under S.156(3) The State of BiharVs.Chandra Bhushan Cr.P.C. S.173 and 2(d) A plaint by subSingh & Ors.AIR2001SC429 inspector of RPF is a complaint and not a charge sheet StateVs.Shankar Bhaurao Cr.P.C. S.173 and Rule 203 of the Bombay KhirodeAIR1959Bom437 Police Manual, Volume III Summaries A B and C explained Union Public Service Commission Vs.S. Cr.P.C. S.173 Court was not justified in Papaiah and othersAIR1997SC3876 accepting final report without notice to the informant Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.173 Electronic charge sheet -SC Narcotics(2013)2SCC590 directed to supply copy of charge sheet in electronic form additionally Popular MuthiahVs.State represented by Cr.P.C. S.173 Options available to Inspector of Police2006(2)ACR2157(SC) Magistrate
Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali (2013)5SCC762
Cr.P.C. S.173 Reinvestigation and further investigation is explained in Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh Cr.P.C. S.173 Report may be one under MishraAIR1968SC117 section 169 or 170 Magistrate cannot direct to file charge sheet Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.173 SC directed to supply copy of Narcotics(2013)2SCC590 charge sheet in electronic form additionally Bandi KotayyaVs.State (S.H.O. Cr.P.C. S.173 When cognizance is said to be Nandigama) and Ors.AIR1966AP377 taken Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(I) Different situations Anr.(2009)6SCC661 before Magistrate are discussed Jakia Nasim Ahesan & Anr. vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(i) Magistrate to issue Gujarat AIR 2012 SC 243 Notice to the informant if not taking cognizance Rama ChaudharyVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.173(8) (2 Judges Bench held) BiharAIR2009SC2308 Magistrates prior permission is not required for further investigation-Reinvestigation is distinct Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and ors. Vs. Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused directed to appear State of Gujarat (2009)6SCC332 for interrogation without being arrested State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused subsequently Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494 arrested Magistrate has dicretion to try together or separately Hemant Dhasmane vs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.173(8) can be triggered by Investigation and anr.AIR2001SC2721 Magistrate Hasanbhai Valibhai QureshiVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Permits further Gujarat and Ors.AIR2004SC2078 investigation, and even dehors any direction from the Court as such Ram Lal NarangVs.State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police has power to further Administration)AIR1979SC1791 investigate but to inform and seek formal permission of Magistrate Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police should inform the Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs.State Magistrate and seek formal permission of Andhra Pradesh & OrsAIR1999SC2332 Chandra BabuVsState and Cr.P.C. S.173(8)_ Magistrate has jurisdiction Ors.(2015)8SCC774 to direct further investigation Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share Cr.P.C. S.177 178 and 181 Objection of Shoppe(2010)12SCC485 jurisdiction to be raised before summoning Court State of Andhra PradeshVs.Cheemalapati Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d) Ganeswara Rao and Anr.AIR1963SC1850 Court can try offences committed in same course of transaction in other jurisdiction State of Maharashtra Vs.Anjanabai Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d) 1997CriLJ2309 Court can try offences committed in same course of transaction in other jurisdiction
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors.Vs.Inspector of Police, Chennai and Anr.AIR2004SC4286 Mahender GoyalVs.Messers Kadamba International2014CriLJ1645 Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N. Ananthapadmanabhiah etc.1974-LW(Crl)82 Three judges Mrs. Minguelin LoboVs.Smt. Archana Sawant MANU-MH-1302-2004 Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs.Rajesh Agarwal and othersAIR1999SC3499 Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others AIR1999SC3499 Musaraf Hossain KhanVs.Bhageeratha Engg. Ltd. and Ors.AIR2006SC1288 UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and Ors.2012ACR1859 Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani vs G.D. Mehrotra And Anr. AIR 2002 SC 483
Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and Anr.(2010)9SCC479 SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi (2001)6SCC670 Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39 SITA case Bombay (DB) State vs Mainabai AIR 1962 Bom 202 State vs MainabaiAIR 1962 Bom 202 Rakesh & anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2014 STPL(Web) 524 SC
Cr.P.C. S.177 Illtreatment took at husbands place No part of offence at her parents place Hence complaint returned Cr.P.C. S.177 to 186 Complaint returning procedure laid down by Madras High Court in Cr.P.C. S.179 Old Act A Magistrate's jurisdiction is limited to his territorial jurisdiction Cr.P.C. S.187 If the offence took beyond jurisdiction, the Magistrate should summon accused and then transfer Cr.P.C. S.187 Power of any Magistrate of the First Class to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions Cr.P.C. S.187 power to take cognizance of the offence is not impaired by territorial restrictions Cr.P.C. S.188 Convenience of the Victim is important Cr.P.C. S.189A IPC Sec.494 cognizable with S. 498A on police report cognizable Cr.P.C. S.190 Acceptance of final report does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance on the basis of the materials produced in a complaint proceeding. Cr.P.C. S.190 and 319 Magistrate can take cognizance against the accused named in FIR but omitted in the charge sheet Cr.P.C. S.190 At the stage of taking cognizance there is no question of S.319 Messers Cr.P.C. S.190 Cognizance taking means Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice Cr.P.C. S.190 In Sessions cases Magistrate has to see only sufficient ground for proceeding and not required to weigh evidence meticulously SC Nupur TalwarCentral Bureau of Investigation and Anr
H.S. BainsVs.State (Union Territory of Chandigarh)(1980)4SCC631
Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate accepted B final report but proceded under Ss.200 and 202 and took cognizance-Upheld in Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr.Vs.Stale of Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can differ with PSO Bihar and Anr.2010CriLJ4190 on police report and issue process for different sections Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take ors.AIR2001SC3524 cognizance against other accused on subsequent date also Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take Anr.(2009)6SCC661 cognizance aginst other than charge sheeted India_Carat_Pvt._Ltd_vs_State_Of_Karnat Cr.P.C. S.190 Notice to informant is aka_&_Anr_on_15_February,_1989 necessary if cognizance is not taken Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.190 Options to Magistrate Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs) M.C. MehtaVs.Union of India (UOI) and Cr.P.C. S.190 Passing order of S.156(3) or Ors.(2007)1SCC110 Search Warrant is not taking Cognizance H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.190 Taj corridor case State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196 Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and ors. AIR Cr.P.C. S.190 Trial is not vitiated if the 2001 SC 3524 cognizance is valid India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can proceed and Anr.AIR1989SC885 against accused not charge sheeted India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can take and Anr.AIR1989SC885 cognizance from the material of final report even if police say no offence madeout Rattiram and Ors.Vs.State of M.P. through Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Options to Magistrate He Inspector of PoliceAIR2012SC1485 can take cognizance from material of final report even if police say no offence madeout Ratiram and others Vs State of M.P Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC and ST Act Trial is not vitiated on mere count that Sessions Court directly accepted the charge sheet 1999CriLJ4173 Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC ST POA Act Though case was not committed Cognizance by Session Trial was not viated Kishun Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.193 Charge-sheet to be returned to Bihar(1993)2SCC16 police for presenting before JMFC for committal in SC and ST POA Act Referring Officer Daulat RamVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.193 On committal Sessions Court PunjabAIR1962SC1206 gets jurisdiction to take cognizance against new accused on same material M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Cr.P.C. S.195 and IPC s.182 it is incumbent Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822 that a complaint in writing should be made by the public servant concerned for only
KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI Vs. RESPONDENT_ STATE OF WEST BENGAL1979 AIR 777 In Re_ Vishwanath M. Hegde AIR1951Bom289 Mahesh Chand SharmaVs.State of U.P. and Ors.(2009)15SCC519 Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul M.L. SethiVs.R.P. Kapur and Anr.AIR1967SC528 Rama Rao and Anr.Vs.Narayan and Anr.AIR1969SC724 State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal PaltaAIR1969SC355 Ajaib Singh and Anr. vs. Joginder Singh and Anr. AIR1968SC1422 State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal PaltaAIR1969SC355
Cr.P.C. S.195 and S.340 Court can file complaint on the basis of FIR and investigation provided 340 is followed Cr.P.C. S.195 Attracted for S.211 IPC Held SC 2_1 in Cr.P.C. S.195 Complaint for S.500 IPC maintenable though the act falls under S.211 IPC also Cr.P.C. S.195 No bar to complaint of false mutation entry outside court Cr.P.C. S.195 no bar to S.156 Cr.P.C. S.195 Not a bar to order of S.156(3) as the bar comes after investigation Then Court can file complaint Cr.P.C. S.195 not bar for S.211 IPC Cr.P.C. S.195 Registrar Co-op societies is not a Court Cr.P.C. S.195
Cr.P.C. S.195 Successor-in-office a Magistrate can file a complant. Limitation under police Act for offence under police Act only Nandkishor Laxminarayan Mundhada And Cr.P.C. S.195 There can be no objection to Ors 2008CriLJ990 the continuance of proceedings relating to offences for other than those covered by Sections 182, 211 and 193 IPC Iqbal Singh Marwah and Cr.P.C. S.195 Will forged prior to production Anr.Vs.Meenakshi Marwah and before court. No bar. Bom says Anr.AIR2005SC2119 Abdul Rehman and Ors. vs. K.M. AneesCr.P.C. S.195(1) Bars unless the complaint is ul-Haq 2012CriLJ1060 by the Court Kamlapati TrivediVs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) attracted for S.211 IPC BengalAIR1979SC777 Chartered Accountants of IndiaVs.Vimal Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) Complaint by Court Kumar Surana and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC(Cri) required for S.211 offence on False police 442 report M.S. SheriffVs.The State of Madras and Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b)(ii) and 4 Case on police Ors.AIR1954SC397 report is tenable by excluding the offences which can be taken cognizance on complaint The Institute of Durgacharan Naik and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.195(3) Criminal proceedings OrissaAIR1966SC1775 should be given precedence and the civil proceedings should be stayed
State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and Anr.AIR2012SC1890
Cr.P.C. S.195Convicted under 353 acquitted under 186 of IPC Cr.P.C. S.197 (Overruled) For want of sanction accused was acquitted instead of discharge SC State of Madhya PradeshSheetla Sahai Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19 Sanction is and Ors.(2009)8SCC617 required for taking cognizance and not for taking charge sheet State of Kerala Vs.V. Padmnabhan Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19ection 197 Nair(1999)5SCC690 requires sanction both for those who were or are public servants Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR Cr.P.C. S.197 Criminal Breach of trust is not 1987 SC 735 part of duty State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao Cr.P.C. S.197 Due to want of valid sanction and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled order will not operate as acquittal State of U.P.Vs.Paras Nath Cr.P.C. S.197 For want of sanction accused Singh2009CriLJ3069 was aquitted instead of discharge State of Orissa through Cr.P.C. S.197 Forgery etc are not part of duty and hence want of sanction is no bar Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Cr.P.C. S.197 is and was Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Cr.P.C. S.197 Necessit of sanction can be JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and considered after evidence when it cannot be Ors.AIR1998SC1524 decided without evidence Mohd. Hadi RajaVs. State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.197 not applicable to public sector Anr.AIR1998SC1945 undertaking employee Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. vs State of Cr.P.C. S.197 Power under S.156(3) is Punjab and Ors(2007)1SCC1 discretionary Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh & Cr.P.C. S.197 Real test is if the complained Orsvs.Jammal Patel and acts were not done should it amount to Ors.AIR2001SC2198 dereliction of duty then sanction is necessary Matajog DobeyVs.H.C. Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction is required to BhariAIR1956SC44 prosecute when the search party was obstructed and there was just a scuffle Kerala HC Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction Test Sankarankutty_Menon_And_Ors._vs_Dep uty_Superintendent_Of_Police,_..._on_3_J anuary,_1961 Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Cr.P.C. S.197 Whether the accused was JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and discharging public servant's duty or not can Ors.AIR1998SC1524 be considered during the progress of the case Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Cr.P.C. S.197 Words used are -is and was Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew State of Orissa through Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas Vs. State Of Cr.P.C. S.198 and S.495 of IPC complainant Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 1967 SC 983 died mother continued complaint S Cr.P.C. S.198 Cognizance of S.494 with S.498A of IPC on charge sheet permissible
tate of Orisssa Vs.Sharat Chandra Sahu and another UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada and Ors.2012ACR1859 Divine Retreat CentreVs.State of Kerala and Ors.AIR2008SC1614 Rajesh Bhalchandra ChalkeVs.State of Maharashtra and Emco Dynatorq Pvt. Ltd.2011(1)MhLj244 Poonam Chand Jain 2005 SCC (Cri) 190 Devendra Kishanlal DagaliaVs.Dwarkesh Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.AIR2014SC655 Vijay Dhanuka Etc.Vs.Najima Mamtaj Etc2014CriLJ2295 Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and Ors.AIR2010SC2261 2014_STPL(Web)_218_SC
Magistrate and Ors.AIR1998SC128
Rajeev SawhneyVs.State Bank of Mauritius Ltd. and Ors.2011(6)MhLj401 Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and Ors.AIR2010SC2261 Adalat PrasadVs.Rooplal Jindal and Ors.(2004)7SCC338 Kewal Krishan Lachman DasVs.Suraj Bhan and Anr.AIR1980SC1780 Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757 Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr.2004CriLJ4609 Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr. (2004)13SCC324 Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share Shoppe2010CriLJ3848 Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757
Cr.P.C. S.198- IPC Sec.494 cognizable with S. 498A on police report cognizable Cr.P.C. S.199 Where police took no action inspite of information remedy lies in filing complaint Cr.P.C. S.200 in N.I. Act cases Affidavits are allowed in lieu of verification Cr.P.C. S.200 Second complaint on same facts when tenable remanded to High Court Cr.P.C. S.201 Complaint cannot be returned after issuing summons Cr.P.C. S.202 Amended Examining witnesses is a compliance of postponement Cr.P.C. S.202 In session triable offences it is not mandatory but advisable to examine all witnesses Cr.P.C. S.202 Inquiry mandatory when accused is from far away place Cr.P.C. S.202 Magistrate is not a silent spectator He may put questions to elicite truth Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.Vs.Special Judicial Cr.P.C. S.202 Once complaint was quashed on the ground of similar complaint being peding further complaint is not tenable Cr.P.C. S.202 Shall does not mean mandatory Not necessary to examine all witnesses in inquiry Cr.P.C. S.203 Magistrate has no jurisdiction to recall the process Cr.P.C. S.203 Sessions Trial case dismissed by Magistrate an error within jurisdiction Cr.P.C. S.204 (Check this ratio) On receiving police report process need not be issued Cr.P.C. S.204 Adalat Prasad case applicable to Summons and Warrant cases Cr.P.C. S.204 and NI Act S.138 Adalat Prasad followed in Cr.P.C. S.204 Challenge to jurisdiction shall be made by application before trial court Cr.P.C. S.204 Check this ratio On receiving police report process need not be issued Cr.P.C. S.204 Court can insist for process fee in non cognizable offences
1Mt. Vithi and Anr. vs Tulsiram Maroti and Crown 950CriLJ746 Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747
Cr.P.C. S.204 Detailed reasons unneccary for issuance process Cr.P.C. S.204 order is not interlocutory Magistrate cannot review Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.204 Summons is a process issued Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747 by court calling to apper Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance explained Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422 Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance means Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422 becoming aware of and to take notice of judicially AIR1997SC3750State of BiharVs.Kadra Cr.P.C. S.206 Notification for Special Pahadiya and Others Summons R.R. ChariVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.206 Use recommended by U.P.AIR1962SC1573 Supreme Court Raj Kishore PrasadVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.209 After committal it cannot be anotherAIR1996SC1931 said that the Magistrate has jurisdiction over the case Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.209 Committal under the new Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422 Code is not an enquiry strictly speaking Cr.P.C. S.209 Form Committal Warrant Chhotan Sao and Anr.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has a duty to secure BiharAIR2014SC907 the Vicera Report etc before the committal Raj Kishore Prasad Vs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has no power to anotherAIR1996SC1931 summon a new accused at the stage of committal State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi Cr.P.C. S.209 Supplying copies under S.207 Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439 is judicial function and without its compliance there can be no committal Chhotan Sao and anr Vs. State of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.209 Without obtaining the forensic AIR 2014 SC 907 report committal by Magistrate is mechanical and without applying mind Pal @ Palla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.210 Clubbing of police case and (2010)10SCC123 complaint case is not permissible when the accused or the offences are not same Delhi HC State vs Ram Kanwar Cr.P.C. S.212(2) is an enabling provision 1984(1)Crimes1040 Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.212, 219 and 220 are enabling AIR 1965 SC 1248 provisions for joinder of trials C.B.I.Vs.Karimullah Osan Khan Cr.P.C. S.216 Charge may be altered any time Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.218 and 219 Charge IPC S.409 1965 AIR 1248 Consecutive sentence in separate trials upheld
Manoharlal Lohe Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1981CriLJ1563 Chudaman Narayan Patil vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 September, 1967 Birichh Bhuian and Ors.Vs.State of BiharAIR1963SC1120 Messers Indian Sulphacid Industries DELHI MANU-DE-2870-2011 Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh 1965 AIR 1248 State vs Ram Kanwar 1984 (1) Crimes 1040 Delhi Aklak Ahmed Fakruddin PatelVs.State of Maharashtra2011CriLJ126
Manivannan And S. Krishnamoorthy vs P.R. Adhikesavan MANU-TN-0178-2008 Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union of India and ors AIR2001SC3810 Nova Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.Vs.State and Anr.2011CriLJ868 Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001 CriLJ 3417 Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001 CriLJ 3417 Nova Vision Electronics Pvt.Ltd and anr Vs. State and anr MANU-DE-4089-2009 K. Prema S. Rao Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao AIR2003SC11
Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Accused never objected joint trial and hence consenting party and hence conviction upheld Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Ranchodlal follwed in Cr.P.C. S.218 Difference between irregularity and illegality in joinder of charges Cr.P.C. S.219 and 220 are exception section 218 of Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. S.219 Charge IPC S.409 Consecutive sentence in separate trials upheld Cr.P.C. S.219 Separate charges and trials is the normal rule Cr.P.C. S.220 Clubbing of police case for S.498A and 306 and complaint case for S.302 and 304B against same accused has been upheld Cr.P.C. S.220 Complainant filed separate cases of S.420 IPC and S.138 NI Act Held separate trials were not improper Cr.P.C. S.220 Each depositors case is individual offence Cr.P.C. S.220 For separate cheque separate trial has been justified Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction Kidnapping from Nagpur Rape in Jabalpur Either Court can try Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction
Cr.P.C. S.220 Separate cheques seperate trials Cr.P.C. S.221 Convicted for S.306 along with S.498A though charged with S.304B and 498A Samadhan Baburao Khakare and Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Major and the minor Ors.Vs.The State of Maharashtra and offences must be cognate offences having Ors.1995(2)MhLj464 main ingredients in common. Ramesh Singh State Of Maharashtra 1993 Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Police Act S.124 conviction CriLJ 2743 upheld though the charge was under S.413 of IPC Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad YadavVs.State Cr.P.C. S.223 On the application of accused through C.B.IAIR2003SC3838 the Magistrate may amalgamate cases. He can read one case evidence in the other Banti @ GudduVs.State of Madhya Cr.P.C. S.226 and 231 APP can choose and PradeshAIR2004SC261 pick his witnesses
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369 Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh dd on_ 07.07.2014 MANU-SC-0587-2014 Union of India (UOI)Vs.Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr.AIR1979SC366 State Of Karnataka vs Chetan Tayal V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I AIR 1980 SC AIR Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijje, AIR 1990 SC 1962 Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Overruled in State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369 Willie (William) SlaneyVs.The State of Madhya PradeshAIR1956SC116 M. Joy Varghese
Cr.P.C. S.226 Anticipatory bail in UP upheld by SC Cr.P.C. S.227 and 239 Material produced by accused not to be considered Cr.P.C. S.227 Charge of an offence not mentioned in charge sheet can be framed Cr.P.C. S.227 Discharge Test Cr.P.C. S.227 Documents produced by accused cannot be considered at the time of charge Cr.P.C. S.227 Framing Charge is Interlocutory order Cr.P.C. S.227 Marshalling of evidence not required at the stage of Charge
Cr.P.C. S.227 Material of accused not to be considered Cr.P.C. S.227 Omission to frame charge of s.34 IPC not fatal Smt. Snehalata MondalVs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.227 Though Trial cannot consider Bengal(2008)1CALLT297(HC) documents of accused High Court can consider under S.482 State of BombayVs.Mohamadh Cr.P.C. S.229 Subsequent plea of guilty KhanAIR1960Bom150 accepted Rohtash KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.231 Additional witness for Haryana(2013)14SCC434 prosecution can be allowed Ram Deo Chauhanvs.State of Assam Cr.P.C. S.231 and Evi Act S.114 Prosecution (2001)5SCC714 is not bound to examine all listed witnesses Narpal Singh & Others vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.235(2) Accused upon conviction Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1066 can be sent to jail until hearing on sentence Modilal Kaluram Kachhara And Etc. vs Cr.P.C. S.235(2) To hear on sentence de State Of Maharashtra 1988 CriLJ__1901__ novo trial not necessary (Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Cr.P.C. S.239 and 240 Transfer application Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra Rejected Complaint Against Judge Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369 Cr.P.C. S.239 Discharged from S.498A and 506 Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs.The State Cr.P.C. S.239 Magistrate need not write of West BengalAIR2000SC522 order for framing charge but has to write order for discharge M. Joy Varghese Vs The State ANU-TNCr.P.C. S.239 Under S.482 no bar to the 0365-2011 High Court to consider the documents produced by accused
Dattatraya Dagduji Borkute 1996 CriLJ987
ILR 1970(1) Del287 Sunil Mehta and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat and Anr.2013(2)BomCR(Cri)335 1983 Mah.L.J.494
Cricket Association of Bengal and ors Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. AIR 1971 SC 1971 Luis De Piedade Lobo Vs.Mahadev Vishwanath Parulekar1984CriLJ513 Hansraj Harjiwan Bhate and Ors.Vs.EmperorAIR1940Nag390
Gurmukh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab (1972)4SCC805 Sagunabai Lahanu Shende Vs.Patru Goma Lengure and others1979MhLJ18 DB In Re_ Jamnabai Meghji AIR1934Bom130 Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal v. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463 Dagdu Govindshet WaniVs.Punja Vedu WaniAIR1937Bom55 IND Synergy Ltd.Vs.Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd.III(2014)BC433(Del) Jhantu DasVs.State of Tripura(2007)2GLR443
Cr.P.C. S.242(2) and 254(2) and 87 If warrant is not applied for, it is Court's discretion to issue warrant to the absent witness Cr.P.C. S.244 Accused has right to cross examine in EBC Cr.P.C. S.244 Statements of S.202 are not EBC Cr.P.C. S.244 Witness in EBC not available for cross after charge His evidence may be considered Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Complaint can be dismissed before charge Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Opportunity to adduce EBC should be given to the Complaint Cr.P.C. S.246 Additional witnesses allowed Absence of any provision on particular matter does not mean that there is no such power in criminal court Cr.P.C. S.248(2) Conviction not bad for failure to adopt procedure applicable to complaint-warrant case Cr.P.C. S.249 cannot be invoked after charge Cr.P.C. S.249 Courts practice of posting case for actual hearing and simple adjournment discussed by Cr.P.C. S.249 Magistrate is not empowered to restore a complaint Cr.P.C. S.250 and 350 Old Act For these sections trial commences in warrant case even before charge Cr.P.C. S.251 Adalat Prasad case would not come in way for objection to jurisdiction Cr.P.C. S.251 If the admitted facts do not amount to offence accused can not be convicted
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan and Ors 2013 (12) SCALE 275
Cr.P.C. S.252 Plead guilty for lessor offences set aside as informant had no opportunity to apply for adding charges or accused Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.252 Rubber stamp used for Maharashtra and others dd on 10.01.2013 recording plea of accused Court upheld the order State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.255 Magistrate should issue Kamble1988MhLJ49 summons on request of the prosecution, but can refuse to adjourn if no efforts taken to serve the summons Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and Prohibition Act Gujarat(1984)2GLR964 S.66(1)(b) Hearing on sentence gives accused to show special reason for less than minimum punishment Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and S.66(1)(b) Magistrate MANU-GJ-0206-1984 has to hear the accused on sentence In Re_ Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis Cr.P.C. S.256 (Do not follow this authority) AIR1950Bom10 (DB) Magistrate can restore the complaint and continue from the last stage Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal 1996-2- Cr.P.C. S.256 and 249 Bombay says MhLj463 Magistrate has no jurisdiction to restore a dismissed complaint Om Gayatri and company Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.256 Bombay No revision lies Maharashtra 2006 Cr.L.J.601 against order under section Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand Cr.P.C. S.256 Court should not insist for AIR1998SC596 presence of particular person should not dismiss if evidence already recorded the Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajaram Rasker Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate cannot restore Vs.Kantilal Virchand Vora & complaint another1998CriLJ3754 Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate has no power to Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra and recall the dismissal order Anr.1983(1)BomCR416 Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Anr.Vs.S.N. Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate not empowered to Thakur and Anr.AIR1986SC1440 restore dismissed complaint S. Rama KrishnaVs.S. Rami Cr.P.C. S.256(1) Magistrate has to dismiss ReddyAIR2008SC2066 complaint unless decided to adjourn for some cause State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.258 After summons only Kamble1988MhLJ49 Magistrate can close case Pramatha Nath MukherjeeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.259 After discharging from West BengalAIR1960SC810 warrant case trying summons case under chapter 20 is valid Zafar and othersVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.263 and 264 of old Cr.P.C Notes of U.P.1968AWR(H.C.)38281 evidence when need not be retained
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan and Ors. Guerrero Lugo Elvia GrisselVs.The State of Maharashtra2012CriLJ1136
Cr.P.C. S.265 Plea bargaining in haste
Cr.P.C. S.265A Notification of the excluded Acts Madras HC Cr.P.C. S.265E Court has no discretion to State_By_vs_K.N.Nehru_on_3_November, award sentence other than one-fourth of the _2011-1 punishment Ramesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.267 Formal arrest of the accused in And Ors. on 17 December, 1986 jail State of Maharashtra Vs.Yadav Natthuji Cr.P.C. S.267 Non production of prisoners Kohachade2000CriLJ959 State of Maharashtra and P.C. SinghVs.Dr. Cr.P.C. S.267 Procedure of Production Praful B. Desai and Anr.AIR2003SC2053 warrant The State of Maharashtra Vs.Bhaurao Cr.P.C. S.273 Evidence on commission Doma Udan and Others1996(1)MhLj214 through VC allowed in Criminal cases Abdul Cr.P.C. S.277 Marathi deposition will prevail RahmanVs.Emperor1927(29)BOMLR813 over English Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors.vs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.278 Not reding over deposition but BengalAIR1989SC1785 making available for his reading was sufficient Trial not vitiated Shivnarayan Cr.P.C. S.278 Object is to ensure accuracy of KabraVs.The State of evidence and to give witness concerned MadrasAIR1967SC986 opportunity to point out mistakes The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan Cr.P.C. S.279 Evidence's language unknown Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008 to accused, but known to advocates. Rajesh Kumar and Anr.Vs.State Govt. of Cr.P.C. S.291A Test Identification Parade NCT of Delhi (2008)4SCC493 and purpose No provision in Cr.P.C. which obliges investigation agency to hold identification parade Kodadi Srinivasa Lingam and Ors.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.293(1) Not obligatory that the of A.P.2001CriLJ602 A.P expert on the scientific issue of the chemical examination of substance, should be made to depose in proceedings before Court Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Cr.P.C. S.294 Admitted documents can be CommitteeVs.Suresh read in evidence Sikaria2013(4)GLT486 Himachal Pradesh AdministrationVs.Om Cr.P.C. S.294 application by accused shall be PrakashAIR1972SC975 considered only statement of S.313 State of Punjab vs. Naib Cr.P.C. S.294 Proof without examining the DinAIR2001SC3955 expert Constitution Bench Dharam Pal and Cr.P.C. S.296 What is formal evidence which Ors.Vs.State of Haryana and Anr.MANU- can be taken on affidavit is explained SC-0720-2013 Jayendra Vishnu ThakurVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.299 and 193 After committal Maharahstra and Anr.(2009)7SCC104 Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to summon accused named in column no.2
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharahstra and Anr. (2009)7SCC104(1
Nirmal Singh Vs.State of HaryanaAIR2000SC1416 Smt. Urmila SahuVs.State of Orissa1998CriLJ1372 Orissa Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Abu Salem Ansari and Anr.(2011)4SCC426
Monica BediVs.State of A.P.(2011)1SCC284 Thomas DanaVs.The State of PunjabAIR1959SC375
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai PatelVs.State of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2012SC2844 State of Karnataka through CBIVs.C. NagarajaswamyAIR2005SC4308 Baban DaudVs.EmperorAIR1915Bom254
Cr.P.C. S.299 is applicable when the accused intentionally makes inaccessable and not merely when it is shown that it is not possible to trace him Cr.P.C. S.299 On surrender of accused attachment to be vacated ) Cr.P.C. S.299 second part is exceptionto S.33 of Evidence Act Cr.P.C. S.299 Unless common evidence is recorded the evidence against the tried accused cannot be read against absconding accused Cr.P.C. S.299(1) will be applicable if any of its conditions are satisfied Cr.P.C. S.300 Double jeopardy To operate as a bar the second prosecution and the consequential punishment thereunder, must be for 'the same offence Cr.P.C. S.300 Double Jeopardy's 3 requisites Cr.P.C. S.300 No Double Jeopardy in Dishonor of Cheque case even if there was a case under S.420 IPC Cr.P.C. S.300 P.C. Act S.19 Fresh trial not barred when the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance due to invaid sanction Cr.P.C. S.301 Trial on Sunday without legal aid was setaside
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir KasabVs.State of MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565 Sitaram SaoVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.302 Free legal aid should be JharkhandAIR2008SC391 provided from the stage of remand Sitaram SaoVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover relied JharkhandAIR2008SC391 Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover was relied MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352 Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. Cr.P.C. S.306 Pardon is not right Aapplicable Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC without committal 307 applicable after 3352 committal.doc Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.306(1) is invocable at MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352 precommitmentS.307 is invocable at postcommitment while state Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon is not right State of Maharashtra (2009)6SCC498 Aapplicable without committal 307 applicable after committal.doc State of Himachal PradeshVs.Surinder Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon Procedure Mohan And OthersAIR2000SC1862
A. DeivendranVs.State of T.N.AIR1998SC2821 Asokan L.S.Vs.State of Kerala2005CriLJ3848
The State of MaharashtraVs.Shanti Prasad Jain1978MhLJ227 Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr.Vs.State of MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352 Mrinal Das and Ors.Vs.The State of TripuraAIR2011SC3753 Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr.Vs.State of MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352 Jasbir Singhvs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi and Ors.AIR2001SC2734 P. Ramachandra RaoVs.State of KarnatakaAIR2002SC1856 Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of Narcotics2013CriLJ1262 circulated in Pune Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab dd in 2012 Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc.AIR1992SC1701 N.G. Dastanevs.Shrikant S. Shivde and Anr.AIR2001SC2028 Bipin Shantilal PanchalVs.State of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2001SC1158 Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc.AIR1992SC1701 Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs State of Assam AIR2001SC2231
Cr.P.C. S.306(4) Accused has no right of cross examination of the approver Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Examination of approver is mandatory if pardon tendered before committal but not mandatory if tendered by sessions court after commital Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Statement of approver is not admissibleunder S.33 Evi Act Cr.P.C. S.306(5) CJM and ACJM and CMM and ACMM have equal jurisdiction Cr.P.C. S.307 After committal the approver need not be examined twice Cr.P.C. S.307 is applicable after committal
Cr.P.C. S.307 is invocable at postcommitment while S.306 is invocable at precommitment state Cr.P.C. S.307 pardon is by Court NDPS Act S.64 is by executive Later overrides Cr.P.C. S.309 Common Cause and Rajdeo Sharma Cases are overruled Cr.P.C. S.309 Criminal Trials Directions for day to day trials Cr.P.C. S.309 Directions given not to grant adjournments casually Cr.P.C. S.309 It is neither permissible nor possible nor desirable to lay down an outer limit of time Cr.P.C. S.309 Magistrate new spared from adverse remarks for allowing Advocates misconduct in seeking adjournment Cr.P.C. S.309 Mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit Cr.P.C. S.309 Neither permissible nor possible nor desirable to lay down an outer limit of time Cr.P.C. S.309 On conviction accused to be taken into custody pending punishment
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home Secretary, State of Bihar, PatnaAIR1979SC1360 P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.309 Speedy trial is of the essence AIR2002SC1856 of criminal justice
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka AIR2002SC1856 Mohd. KhalidVs.State of West Bengal(2002)7SCC334 State of U.P. vs.Shambhu Nath Singh & Ors.AIR2001SC1403
Cr.P.C. S.309 Supreme Court cannot fix time for conclusion of trials Cr.P.C. S.309 Time cannot be fixed by Supreme Court for conclusion of trials Cr.P.C. S.309 Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses Sasi ThomasVs.State and Cr.P.C. S.309 When witnesses are present Ors.(2006)12SCC421 and accused causes adjournment Court can remand accused or direct payment of expenses present In Re_ Kesava Pillai and Anr. Cr.P.C. S.311 Court can order further AIR1929Mad837 investigation Nageshwar Shri Krishna GhobeVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.311 Just decision does not MaharashtraAIR1973SC165 necessarily mean a decision in favour of defence Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan,Vs.Union Cr.P.C. S.311 Parties cannot control the Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Court's discretion to have any additional 2003BomCR(Cri)1103 evidence Rajendra Prasad Vs.The Narcotic Cr.P.C. S.311 Recall of witness allowed CellAIR1999SC2292 Iddar and Ors.Vs.Aabida and Cr.P.C. S.311 The power of the Court was Anr.AIR2007SC3029 plenary to summon or even recall any witness at any stage of the case Rajendra Prasad vs The Narcotic Cell Cr.P.C. S.311 to be invoked Essential for just Through Its AIR 1999 SC 2292 decision Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Vs. Union Cr.P.C. S.311 What is Lacuna. No party in a Territory Of Dadra And Nagar, 2004 CriLJ trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors 150 Laxman alias Laxmayya Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.311 Witness recalled to depose as Maharashtra 2012 Cri.L.J. 2826 they turned hostile previously due to threats by the accused Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313 Accused be informed that he Punjab2012CriLJ4657 Prosecution can decline to give answers and his inculpatory statements may be taken into consideration Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313 AND PC Act Failure of Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214 accused to offer appropriate explanation or giving false answer may be counted as providing a missing link State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.313 Counsel cannot be examined Kamble1988MhLJ49 Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.313 Statement is not evidence Gujarat(1984)2GLR964 Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr. C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748
In Re_ Kannammal alias Maunammal 92Ind. Cas.695 Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214(3JJs) Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214 Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr. C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748 Messers Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs Messers Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd.AIR2001SC3625 Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241
Bholu RamVs.State of Punjab and Anr.2008 Cri.L.J. 4576 SC Rakesh and Anr.vs.State of HaryanaAIR2001SC2521
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Accused should be warned Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Advocate cannot be examined but questionire for accused can be given Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Counsel cannot be examined Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Statement is not evidence Cr.P.C. S.317 Personal exemption when can be granted Cr.P.C. S.319 A person discharged can be arraigned again as accused after an inquiry as contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398 (5JJs) Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused can apply to Magistrate Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused named in FIR but excluded police can be summoned even without cross exam of the witness Cr.P.C. S.319
Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab and Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241 Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained A Ors. AIR2014SC1400 person discharged can be arraigned again as accused after an inquiry as contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398 (5JJs) Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained when and Ors. etc. etc.AIR2014SC1400 can section 319 be resorted Dr. S.S. KhannaVsChief Secretary, Patna Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can proceed against and Anr.AIR1983SC595(2Judges) an accused whom the Magistrate refused to summon Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can take Anr.(2010)9SCC479 cognizance against the accused named in FIR but omitted in the charge sheet Kishori Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate cannot issue and Anr. AIR2000SC3725 process to FIR named but chargesheet unnamed accused at committal stage (Two Judges in) Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.319 Purpose of this power is AnrAIR2007SC2786 explained 2012 STPL(Web) 521 SC Cr.P.C. S.320 and 482 FIR quashing When can the HC on compromise Bom FB Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Cr.P.C. S.320 At any stage permissible Vs.The State of Maharashtra2008 2 MhLj856
Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs State Of Gujarat & Cr.P.C. S.320 IPC S.324 offence before Ors amendment is compundable Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit Ors.2009-2-UC879 for conciliation SC said Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit Ors.2009-2-UC879 for mediation SC said Hirabhai JhaverbhaiVs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.320 Offence of S.324 IPC prior to and Ors.AIR2010SC2321 amendment is compoundable Rameshchandra J. ThakkarVs.Assandas Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding is not Parmanand Jhaveri, State of permissible MaharashtraAIR1973SC84 Rajinder SinghVs.State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding was Administration)AIR1980SC1200 maintained without discussion on validity Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.320 Referring to Larger Bench as Anr.(2010)15SCC118 S.420 IPC is compoundable and S.120B is non compoundable Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.320 Under S.482 nonMaharashtra2008 2 MhLj856 compoundable offence's FIR can be quashed Bom FB Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.320 When can the F.I.R. be Anr.(2012)10SCC303 quashed guidelines given in Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.321 Grounds for seeking Courts Ors.AIR1987SC877 consent for withdrawal Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.321 Withdrawal permission Ors.AIR1987SC877 principles discussed in A.P. High Court Cr.P.C. S.323 and 325 Magistrate shall not commit the case merely for severe punishment Sudhir and ors. etc.vs.State of M.P. Cr.P.C. S.323 Sessions Judge has power to etc.AIR2001SC826 try any offence Cross cases should be tried by him Khoda Bux MalVs.Ohadali Cr.P.C. S.325 Magistrate has to write an MalAIR1949Cal308 order but not judgment II Addl. Judicial First Class Cr.P.C. S.325 When Magistrate cannot MagistrateVs.State of A.P.2005CriLJ1168 exceed the limit of S.29 for want of special DB provision he has to resort to S.325 and not 323 RajagopalVs.Forest Range Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record Officer2012(1)CTC639 finding of guity and CJM cannot send back case. RajagopalVs.Forest Range Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record Officer2012(1)CTC639 finding of guity. NageshVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate to record finding Karnataka1990CriLJ2234 and then refer to CJM Jaikishan Kanjiwani Vs Kumar Matching Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence Centre2011CriLJ134 and not substance of evidence is recorded
Ramilaben Trikamlal ShahTube and Allied Products and others Navinchandra Hiralal Desai
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali 2012 CriLJ 4537
Ranbir Yadav Vs State of Bihar AIR 1995 SC 1219 Emperor Vs. Maung Ragoon HC relies on Bombay Pratibha Pandurang Salvi Vs. State of Maharashtra 2010CriLJ730
Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence on affidavit followed by cross. De novo not required Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 In summary trial only substance and not entire sentence is recorded Cr.P.C. S.326 Denovo Trial In an extremely serious case of exceptional nature it would occasion in failure of justice if Prosecution is not taken to logical conclusion Cr.P.C. S.326 Discretion given to court to read previous evidence Cr.P.C. S.326
Cr.P.C. S.326 Once the Magistrate used the discretion to try summarily, on his transfer it should be denovo Trial Mukesh and etc.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.326 Rajastan HC in EC Act case Rajasthan1998CriLJ2439 Summary EmperorDurgaprasad Chunnilal and Cr.P.C. S.326 Substance of evidence can be Ors.AIR 1940 Nag 239 acted upon Tippanna Koutya Mannavaddar Bombay Cr.P.C. S.326 Summary Trials Notes DB AIR1934Bom157 Procedure MunicipalityNagindas Maganlal AIR 1953 Cr.P.C. S.326 Surat Borough Bom 29 J.V. Baharuni vs. State of Gujarat (2014) Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and NI Act S.138 and 142 10 SCC 494 If the evidence was not recorded summarily but fully then no need of denovo Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and S.138 NI Act Pursis of Anr.Vs.Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and accused would not make legal to read Anr.AIR2011SC3076 evidence recorded by previous Magistrate Shyambahadur Purshottam SharmaVs.Shri. Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Denovo Trial not necessary Sudhakar Narshu PoojaryMANU-MH1393-2013 Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Justice Mridula Bhatkar's judgment on summary trial K. JayachandranVsO. Nargeese and Cr.P.C. S.326(3) No need of denovo trial Anr.1987CriLJ1997 Abdul Sukkur Barbhuiya Vs. the State of Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Sessions Court to record Assam and others, Gauhati HC dd evidence denovo 24.01.2012 CrlRevP1922011 Reserve Bank Employees Association, Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Succeeding Judge can NagpurVs.State of Maharashtra and proceed (Case under old CR.P.C.) Ors.AIR1969Bom199 State of Punjab Vs.Gurmit Singh and Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera proceeding Others AIR1 996 SC 1393 directions
Sakshi Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 2004 SC 3566 The State of MaharashtraVs.Subhashsing Shalikramsingh Raghuwanshi1995(1)MhLj358 Ms. Leena Balkrishna NairVs.The State of Maharashtra2010CriLJ3392 State of MaharashtraVs.Sukhdeo Singh and anotherAIR1992SC2100 D.K. Basu Vs.State of West BengalAIR1997SC610 Arun Paswan, S.I.Vs.State of Bihar and Ors.JT2003(10)SC459 The Superintendent of PoliceVs.The Judicial Magistrate Court, CheyyarIV(2015)CCR502(Mad.) Dayal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of UttaranchalAIR2012SC3046 Satya NarainVs.State of Rajasthan1987WLN(UC) Raj 458 A.T. PrakashanVs.The Excise Inspector and Anr.2014ALLMR(Cri)1945 State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme (2014)5SCC108 State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme Court jjment dated 07.01.2014 Complainant GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and anr.AIR2014SC1198 Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy JosephVs.State of Maharashtra(2014)4SCC69 2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC R.MOHAN VS VIJAY KUMAR R. VijayanVs.Baby and Anr.AIR2012SC528 R. VijayanVs.Baby and Anr.AIR2012SC528 Ankush Shivaji GaikwadVs.State of MaharashtraAIR2013 SC 2454
Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera trial and not to disclose the name of the victim Cr.P.C. S.334 Acquittal case Course to be adopted while acquitting on insanity ground Cr.P.C. S.338 and IPC S.84 Accused was acquitted and released under section 338 of Cr.P.C. Cr.P.C. S.342 (3) Answers given by accused may be taken into consideration at enquiry or trial Cr.P.C. S.342 Compensation to the victim Cr.P.C. S.345 Contempt of Court by police officer Cr.P.C. S.349 and 91 Notice should be issued before taking action Cr.P.C. S.353 Court is competent to direct departmental action aginst erring officers Cr.P.C. S.353 Judgment pronounced in absence of accused was upheld as he was present during the trial Cr.P.C. S.353 Misquoting of the Section or misapplying the provisions has caused no prejudice Hence conviction maintained Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs to be recorded in each acquittal case whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs to be recorded in each acquittal case whether the lapse was innocent or blameworthy Cr.P.C. S.354 and 154 The person who lodges the FIR be called the Informant and not the Cr.P.C. S.354(3) Court has to discharge its constitutional obligations and honour legislative policy by awarding appropriate sentence, that is will of people Cr.P.C. S.357 and S.138 NI Act Compensation default sentence Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I. Act cases Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I. Act cases should include costs and loss Cr.P.C. S.357 Every Courts Mandatory duty to consider compensation
Ram Pal Vs. T.S. Thakur and Adarsh Kumar Goes JT2015(2)SC496 R. MohanVs.A.K. Vijaya Kumar2012CriLJ3953 Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co. Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007 K.A. Abbas H.S.A.Vs.Sabu Joseph and Anr.(2010)6SCC230 2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC Sunil alias Pona Tolaram Pore (Varma) Vs. State of Maharashtra Chandreshwar SharmaVs.State of Bihar(2000)9SCC245 Eliamma and Anr.Vs.State of Karnataka(2009)11SCC42 State of PunjabVs.Prem Sagar and Ors.2008CriLJ3533 Rupam Pralhad Bhartiya Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-MH-10052011 State of PunjabVs.Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors Minu Kumari and Anr.Vs.The State of Bihar and Ors.AIR2006SC1937
Cr.P.C. S.357 State to compensation in S.304A IPC where accused is unable to pay Cr.P.C. S.357(3) (Simple) Imprisonment in default of compensation was justified Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Compensation to be less than recoverable in civil court Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Default sentence of compensation is legal Cr.P.C. S.357(3) jail if compensation is unpaid explained Cr.P.C. S.360 not applicable to Maharashtra Probation not available for S.326 IPC Cr.P.C. S.361 Court shall give reasons for denial of benefit of probation Cr.P.C. S.361 Mandatory to give reasons
Cr.P.C. S.361 Sentence would depend on many factors Cr.P.C. S.361 Special Reasons to be given for not granting probation HC increased fine to one lakh Cr.P.C. S.362 High Court has no power under S.482 to review Cr.P.C. S.362 Magistrate can drop proceeding against against whom process was issued by mistake Mohd. Chaman Vs.State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Cr.P.C. S.366 propositions to be kept in mind 2001CriLJ725 for determination of question of death sentence In Re_ The Additional District Judge-cum- Cr.P.C. S.374 and 9 Additional Sessions Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam Judge can hear an appeal from Assistant 2003-1-LW(Crl)77 Sessions Judge if punishment was less than 7 years State of MP V Bacchudas alias Balram and Cr.P.C. S.374 Appeallate Court duties Ors - AIR2007SC1236 Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co. Cr.P.C. S.374 Right of appeal against Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007 conviction cannot be curtailed But appellate court can impose condition for suspending sentence Messers Pioneer Castings and another Vs Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal lies to Sessions Employees State Insurance Corporation Court and not HC Notes Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal to High Court when lies Sudhir Niranjan Chakre Vs.Rajesh Ramdas Cr.P.C. S.374(4) and 2(wa) and Wankhade2014ALLMR(Cri)4624 407(1)(c)(iv)_ Victim can appeal to Sessions Court and State to High Court against
acquittal Parties can pray high court to transfer The State of MaharashtraVs.Hanmant Cr.P.C. S.378 Against acquittal appeal lies to Prabhakar Waidande and Ors.MANU-MH- sessions court in state case to high court in 0868-2006 complaint case State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.378 Limitation is 90 days for Administration)vs.DharampalAIR2001SC2 Appeal by complainant to HC against 924 acquittal in Food Act case EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji Cr.P.C. S.381 Assistant and Additional NarangikarAIR1931Bom313 Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction of Sessions Court K.S. PandurangaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.384 to 386 Appeal once admitted KarnatakaAIR2013SC2164 has to be decided on merits even in absence of accused Kishori LalVs.Rupa and Cr.P.C. S.389 Appellate Court shall consider Ors.(2004)7SCC638 nature of allegations etc for granting bail State of PunjabVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.389 High court recalled its order MattuAIR2008SC35 Kishori LalVs.Rupa and Cr.P.C. S.389(1) Appellate Court shall Ors.(2004)7SCC638 consider nature of allegations etc for granting bail Mayuram Subramanian Cr.P.C. S.389(3) is applicable only when SrinivasanVs.C.B.I.AIR2006SC2449 there is right to appeal Bondada Gajapathy RaoVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.394 Old S.431 When appellant has PradeshAIR1964SC1645 died Appeal against fine only can be allowed to be continued but not against imprisonment Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam Cr.P.C. S.397 against order refusing S.156 Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363 directing for inquiry Accused to be impleaded Hasmukh J. JhaveriVs.Shella Dadlani and Cr.P.C. S.397 and 146 Not interlocutory another1981CriLJ958 Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.397 and 156(3) Interference with Jagdevrao Deshmukh 2008CriLJ3761 order under Section 156(3) should normally be confined to cases in which there are some very exceptional circumstances State of KeralaVs.K.M. Charia Abdullah Cr.P.C. S.397 Distinction between Appeal and Co.AIR1965SC1585 and Revision K. Chinnaswamy ReddyVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.397 Evi Act S.27 misinterpreted by PradeshAIR1962SC1788 appellate Court Rehearing ordered Madhu LimayeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397 Interlocutory order test MaharashtraAIR1978SC47 explained D. StephensVs.NosibollaAIR1951SC196 Cr.P.C. S.397 Jurisdiction not to be lightly exercised when invoked by a private complainant against an order of acquittal against which the Government has a right of appeal under section
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of MaharashtraAIR1978SC47 Mohit alias Sonu and Anr.Vs.State of U.P. and Anr.MANU-SC-0633-2013
Raj Kapoor and Ors.Vs.State and Ors.AIR1980SC258 Mr. Joaquim Anthony D'Souza Anthony D'SouzaVs.Mrs. Milinda Rosy D'Souza YogeshVs.The State of Maharashtra2015(1)BomCR(Cri)750 Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P. and anotherAIR1997SC2485 State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Kuldip Singh and Others, 2004 (7) SCC 659 K.K. Patel and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2000SC3346 Madhu LimayeVs.The State of MaharashtraAIR1978SC47 Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P. and anotherAIR1997SC2485 In Re_ District and Sessions Judge Raisen 2005(3)MPLJ26
Cr.P.C. S.397 Cr.P.C. S.397 Order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order Cr.P.C. S.397 Petition under section 482 converted to revision Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against interim maintenace tenable Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against order directing complainant to remain present for verification is not tenable Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision order setting aside acquittal and retrial direction upheld- I.O. findings not evidence Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision
Cr.P.C. S.397 Test whether interlocutory Cr.P.C. S.397 What is interim order is explained Cr.P.C. S.401 Scope of revision explained
Cr.P.C. S.409(2) Sessions Judge has power to transfer partheard sessions case without hearing EmperorVs.Chunilal Cr.P.C. S.412 (Old) Accused who pleaded Hargovan1926(28)BOMLR1023 guilty can contend that his conviction was illegal Mr. Parkar Hasan Abdul GafoorVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.413 Surety is not automatically Maharashtra & others1999(5)BomCR481 discharged DhanapalVs.State by Public Prosecutor Cr.P.C. S.417 Criminal Appellate Court 2009 Cri.L.J. 4647 When can interefere Aher Raja KhimaVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.417 It is not enough to take a SaurashtraAIR1956SC217 different view of the evidence and there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial Court was wrong Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Ors.Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.423(1) High Court set aside State of MaharashtraAIR1971SC840 acquittal by sessions. It can exceed original sentence Appellate Courts Power of punishment.doc M.R. Kudva Appellant vs State Of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.427 Concurrent plea has been Pradesh 2007 (1) Crimes 50 (SC) rejected as offences were different
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv Chhokha Sable vs State Of Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469 Bapurao Trimbakrao SonawaneVs.The State of Maharashtra and The Superintendent of Police2009(111)BOMLR1271 Emperor vs Waman Dinkar Kelkar 20 BOMLR 998 Rajendra B. Choudhari vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr 2007CriLJ844 Gulab Gaibu Shaikh Vs The State Of Maharashtra 2001ALLMR(Cri)1404 Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of Chandigarh AIR 1991 SC 2296 Cr.P.C. S.427 Sentence No Policy Soman Vs State of Kerala 2012(12)SCALE719 Cr.P.C. S.427 State Of Maharashtra vs Raju Dadaba Borge 2001 CriLJ 3638 Cr.P.C. S.427 Sunil Anandrao Sawant Vs Government Of Maharashtra Ammavasai and AnrVs.Inspector of Police and Ors.AIR2000SC3544 Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim Ahmed BhattiVs.Assistant Collector of Customs AIR1988SC2143 Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv Chhokha Sable vs State Of Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469 M.R. KudvaVs.State of Andhra PradeshAIR2007SC568 Narayanan NambeesanVs.The State of Maharashtra1974(76)BOMLR690 Shiv Mohan SinghVs.The State (Delhi Administration)AIR1977SC949 Namdeo @ Ram Krushna KhotVs.The State of Maharashtra2006(6)MhLj783 State of Maharashtra and Anr.vs.Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255
Cr.P.C. S.427 Cr.P.C. Undergoing sentence means Cr.P.C. S.427 Different cheques of same transaction with common notice can be trial at one trial Cr.P.C. S.427 Cr.P.C. S.427 Four cases of S.138 NI Act consecutive sentence justified Cr.P.C. S.427 Cr.P.C. S.427
Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has been considered Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has to be considered Cr.P.C. S.427 Undergoing sentence means
Cr.P.C. S.427 Whether concurrent or consecutive has to be considered by the latter Court convicting Cr.P.C. S.428 Courts should specify the preconviction detention. Procedural law is retrospective gives benefit to all convicts Cr.P.C. S.428 Death sentence validity upheld Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off if not given simple misc. application is sufficient Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off is entitled for the period of detention in the instant crime though during same period he was undergoing sentence in another case
Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Najakat Alia Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.)Vs.State of GujaratAIR2008SC2318
SC in Swamy Shraddananda Murali Manohar Mishra vs Vs.State Of Karnataka on 22 July, 2008 State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and HarpalAIR2010SC1690Remission State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and HarpalAIR2010SC1690
Mulla and Anr.Vs.State of Uttar PradeshAIR2010SC942 Rasiklal Vs. Kisore Khanchand WadhwaniAIR2009SC1341 Salim Ikramuddin Ansari and Anr.Vs.Officer-in-Charge, Borivali Police Station and Ors.2004(4)MhLj725 Sukhwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559 Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312 Monit MalhotraVs.The State of Rajasthan1991CriLJ806 Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312 Sandeep Jain Vs National Capital Territory of Delhi Rep. by Secretary, Home Deptt. (18.01.2000 - SC) UttamkumarVs.The State of Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)697
Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off of the detention in sentenced case is available even if accused was simultaneous undergoing sentence in other case Cr.P.C. S.429(2) Trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future or the period of incarceration would not be sufficient for granting bail Cr.P.C. S.433 Life imprisonment with direction for rest of life Cr.P.C. S.433A Case of convict was to be considered on strength of policy on existing date of his conviction Cr.P.C. S.433A For remission policy as on conviction date would prevail. If beneficial to convict policy as on date of consideration also applicable Cr.P.C. S.433A Life imprisonment is for 20 years unless directed otherwise Cr.P.C. S.436 Bail in bailable offences is rule Cr.P.C. S.436 Court to call information whether the accused was released on bail or not Cr.P.C. S.436 Interim Bail is inherent Cr.P.C. S.436 Cr.P.C. S.436 The accused in bailable offence bailed out by police need not apply to the Maigsitrate for fresh bail Cr.P.C. S.436 to 450 Cr.P.C. S.437 Accused cannot be kept in jail for failure to make payment as per bail order. Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 Accused again arrested for added offence
Uttamkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2012 Bom C.R.(Cri) 697
Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 After bail police added life or death section Magistrate cannot release otherwise he can additional surety Bom HC Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs Cr.P.C. S.437 and I.P.C. S.409 JMFC has The State Of Maharashtra power to grant bail 2012(1)MhLj900 Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V. Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail cancelled accused rected Vijay Sai Reddy AIR2013SC2216 to surrender Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail considerations Cbi State of MaharashtraVs.Kaushar Yasin Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail for S.326 by Magistrate Qureshi and another1996(2)MhLj485 sustained, bail for S.302 cancelled Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.437 Before taking the accused into Maharashtra and Anr.2014(4)SCALE215 judicial custody there would be arrest Nandini BhatnagarVs.State Govt. of NCT Cr.P.C. S.437 Condition not to go abroad of DelhiI(2013)DMC495 without permission deleted Km. Hema MishraVs.State of U.P. and Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court shall not direct Ors.AIR2014SC1066 subordinate to decide bail application on same day Interim bail is permissible, UP FB in Amarawati and Anr. Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court should ordinarily (Smt.)Vs.State of U.P.2005CriLJ755 not direct any subordinate court to decide the bail application the same daySukhwant singh vs state of punjab Cr.P.C. S.437 Interim Bail is Inherent Power 2010CriLJ1435 and (2009) 7 SCC 559 The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant ... vs The Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate can grant bail in State Of Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)841 S.409 IPC as triable by himself held by Justice Potdar EmperorVs.Rautmal Kanumal Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has inherent power MarwadiAIR1940Bom40 to cancel bail which was granted by another Magistrate for the smooth trial Batta Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs. Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has no power of State Of Maharashtra 2001(3)MhLj465 bail in life term cases held by Justice Ramji Vs.State of Punjab MANU-PHCr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant 0150-2001 bail in offences triable by him PH HC Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant Vasant KulkarniVs.The State of bail in S.409 and 467 IPC case Maharashtra2011(2)MhLj361R.C. Chavan, J Allahabad HC Ram Bharoshi and Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant Ors.Vs.State of U.P. and bail in sessions triable offence not punishable Anr.2004(3)ACR2563 with life or death
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi AIR 2001 SC 1444 Jyoti Kaut Kohli Vs. State of Maha Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of BiharAIR1964SC1
Ganeshanan Lakshmanan and Anr.Vs.The State of MaharashtraMANU-MH-03452009 Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of BiharAIR1964SC1 Santosh Bhaurao RautVs.State of Maharashtra1989MhLJ162 BhagwatVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr
Union of India and others Vs.Major General Madan Lal Yadav AIR 1996 SC 1340 Cr.P.C. S.437A Allahabad HC Syed ArmanVs.State of U.P.2012ACR1681 Balkrishna Mahadev LadVs.State of Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)300 Sareena, O.P.Vs.State of KeralaILR2013(1)Kerala537 2012_STPL(Web)_470_SC Rakesh Baban BorhadeVs.State of MaharashtraDecided On_ 19.11.2014 Asaram Sitaram PadoleVs.Yadaorao Raghobaji Hatwar and Ors.1991(93)BOMLR994 Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union of India and ors.(2002)2SCC210
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate shall not grant bail in sessions triable offence Anticipatory bail for lessor offence Cr.P.C. S.437 Powers of Magistrate referred for larger bench Cr.P.C. S.437 Second Opinion -When medical reason is a ground for bail the Magistrate can call for detailed report from medical officer Cr.P.C. S.437 Solvency Certificate need not be insisted for always Cr.P.C. S.437 When medical reason is a ground for bail the Magistrate can call for detailed report from medical officer Cr.P.C. S.437(1)(i) attracted even if the law prescribes death or imprisonment for life as the maximum Cr.P.C. S.437(5) Cancellation of bail for breach of condition of attending police station was set aside Cr.P.C. S.437(6) Trial commences when the matter is posted for evidence
Cr.P.C. S.437A and 390 Accused even after acquittal can be detained for not furnishing surety Cr.P.C. S.437A not mandatory Cr.P.C. S.438 An Absconding accused is not entitled for anticipatory bail Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail cannot be granted as a rule but subject to satisfaction that the accused would not misuse Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail continues till cancellation or trial is over Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail refused in while collored crimes of cheating in numerous states
State State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Brojen Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101
Cr.P.C. S.438 Application to be heard by the High Court having jurisdiction over the place of offence with notice to that Sumit MehtaVs.State of N.C.T. of Delhi Cr.P.C. S.438 Deposit condition deleted J. Bhatkar ordjud Cr.P.C. S.438 does not lie against non bailable warrant by Magistrate MP HC Cr.P.C. S.438 High Court not to grant Dr._Pradeep_Kumar_Soni_vs_State_Of_M anticipatory bail for crime in another state adhya_Pradesh_on_13_March,_1990 Mukesh Kishanpuria Vs. State of West Cr.P.C. S.438 Interim Bail -Grant of regular Bengal 2010 (4) SCALE 649 bail includes power to grant interim bail pending main application Harjit SinghVs.Union of India (UOI) and Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court Ors.1994CriLJ3134 having local jurisdiction Dr. Pradeep Kumar SoniVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court Madhya Pradesh1990CriLJ2055 where offence took place State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Brojen Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction_ Application to be Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101 heard by the High Court having jurisdiction over the place of offence with notice to that State Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union Cr.P.C. S.438 Not applicable to person of India and ors already arrested and in prison Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Cr.P.C. S.438 When can anticipatory bail Ors.Vs.State of PunjabAIR1980SC1632 granted is explained Niranjan Singh and Anr.Vs.Prabhakar Cr.P.C. S.439 Appearance of accused before Rajaram Kharote and Ors.AIR1980SC785 the Court amounts to custody C.B.I.New Delhi Vs. Abhishek Verma Cr.P.C. S.439 Bail matter Anilkumar vs State Of Maharashtra on Cr.P.C. S.439 Cancellation of bail 15.11.1989 Anwari BegumVs.Sher Mohammad and Cr.P.C. S.439 Factors to be considered for Anr.AIR2005SC3530 bail are discussed Amarawati and Anr. (Smt.)Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Interim bail can be granted on U.P.2005CriLJ755 the same day UP FB in Neeru YadavVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Parity ground is not absolute U.P.2014(14)SCALE59 Antecedents of applicant may warrant rejection of bail Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Cr.P.C. S.439 Submitting to the Court also Rajaram Kharote & ors 1980 AIR 785 amounts to custody Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Surrender before Sessions Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-SC-0239Court and bail application 2014 Dinesh Singh Arjun SinghVs.State of U.P. Cr.P.C. S.439(1) Bail order cancelled by and Pramod Singh Bhagwan Singh High court itself Jai KrishanVs.The State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail obtained by fraud Others2010(1)RCR(Criminal)249 Punjab Dinesh M_N_ (S_P_) vs State Of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail when to cancel on 28 April, 2008
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001 Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas & Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001 Dr_ Narendra K Amin vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 28 April, 2008 State (Delhi Administration)Vs.Sanjay GandhiAIR1978SC961 Free Legal Aid CommitteeVs.State of BiharAIR1982SC1463 Mr. Sajal Kumar Mitra and Ors.Vs.The State of Maharashtra2011CriLJ2744
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail justified Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail Cr.P.C. S.439(2) When can the bail be cancelled Cr.P.C. S.439(2)_ Bail can be cancelled on allegation of tampering Bombay case referred in Cr.P.C. S.441(3) and 209 Bail bond is for appearance before Sessions Court also Cr.P.C. S.445 Pending surety verification Magistrates has power to release accused on cash surety and thereafter asking him to furnish solvent sureties Cr.P.C. S.446 Forfeit first and then issue show cause notice to recover amount Cr.P.C. S.446 Show cause notice necessary
Bhoja Babu Salian vs State Of Maharashtra1983 (2) BomCR 165 Ghulam Mehdi vs State Of Rajasthan AIR1960SC1185 Divisional Forest Officer and Anr.Vs.G.V. Cr.P.C. S.451 and 452 explained in Forest Sudhakar Rao and Ors.MANU-SC-0069Act Case 1985 General Insurance Council and Cr.P.C. S.451 and 457 Supreme Court Ors.Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and directions regarding custody of seized Ors.2010CriLJ2883 properties Delhi Excise Act State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.451 Magistrate has no jurisdiction Delhi)Vs.Narender MANU-SC-0010-2014 to release vehicle under State Bank of IndiaVs.Rajendra Kumar Cr.P.C. S.451 Party adversely affected Singh and Ors.AIR1969SC401 should be heard before the Court makes an order for return of the seized property State (NCT of Cr.P.C. S.457 and Excise Act Due to Delhi)Vs.Narender2014ALLMR(Cri)736 confiscation clause Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release vehicle State of KarnatakaVs.K.A. Cr.P.C. S.457 and Forest Act Magistrate has KunchindammedAIR2002SC1875 no jurisdiction to give interim custody Navin Vasantraj Modh Vs State of Cr.P.C. S.457 Aplication was directed to be Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)685 decided at the end Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai And C.M. ... vs Cr.P.C. S.457 Directions regarding disposal State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002 of seized properties State of U.P. and Anr.Vs.Lalloo Cr.P.C. S.457 is not applicable in view of Singh(2007)7SCC334 S.50 of Wild Life Act Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M. Cr.P.C. S.457 Supreme Court guidelines for MudaliarVs.State of disposal of properties GujaratAIR2003SC638 Prakash Tarachand SakhreVs.Ashok Cr.P.C. S.457 When it is proved that T.T. Pundloikrao Wajge and forms were submitted non-transfer of Anr.2001CriLJ3024 registration of vehicle does not matter
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.V.K. SehgalAIR1999SC3706 Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar MohantyAIR2007SC2762 Limination Arun Vyas & Anr vs Anita Vyas on 14 May, 1999 Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar MohantyAIR2007SC2762 State Of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh1981 SCALE (1)619 Jethmal Himmatmal Jain and othersVs.State of Maharashtra1981CriLJ1813 Rakesh Kumar JainVs.State Through CBI AIR 2000 SC 2754
Mrs. Sarah MathewVs.The Institute of Cardio Vascular DiseasesMANU-SC1210-2013 Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh BediVs.The State of Maharashtra2010CriLJ315
Kailash Shreekisan ChaurasiaVs.State of Maharashtra & Ors.2012BomCR(Cri)83 Modilal Kaluram Kachhara and etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra MANU-MH0041-1988 Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And ___ vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, 2008 Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Ors_ Vs_ State Of Punjab & Ors_ on 5 May, 2009
Cr.P.C. S.465(2) Court to consider whether objection had raised objection PC Act S.19 Cr.P.C. S.468 Date of filing complaint and not cognizance be counted Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitaion Rational and Purpose behind Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitation Date of filing complaint and not cognizance be counted Cr.P.C. S.468(2) Bar of limitation on prosecutions was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay should be explained in the complaint or separate application and Court should pass speaking order Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay stood explained Cr.P.C. S.473 Interest of justice cannot be interpreted to mean in the interest of prosecution Cr.P.C. S.473 Notice to accused before taking cognizance is not contemplated Cr.P.C. S.475 and Court Martial (A.o.J) Rules, 1952 Notice to Commandant necessary Cr.P.C. S.475 Central Govt to decide Military Authority or Criminal Court Accused did not ask for counsel hence no prejudice Cr.P.C. S.482 and 397 Bombay HC Ramona M. Chandiramani Revision against issue process order tenable Cr.P.C. S.482 Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar vs. The State of Maharashtra NOT FOLLOWED Cr.P.C. S.482 Case transfer from one Magistrate to another Magistrate rejected Cr.P.C. S.482 No compounding of noncompoundable offences Cr.P.C. S.482 When can FIR be quashed
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Anr.2012BomCR(Cri)428 Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075 Rengaswami NaickerVs.Muruga NaickenAIR1954Mad169 Talab Haji HussainVs.Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Anr.AIR1958SC376 State of GujaratVs.Krushnmorari Ramkrushna Gupta and Ors(1988)2GLR965 The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008 Sanction Matajog DobeyVs.H.C. BhariAIR1956SC44 Banslochan Lal and Anr.Vs.EmperorAIR1930Pat195 Human Rights CommissionVs.State of Gujarat and Ors.(2009)6SCC342 Nanak ChandVs.The State of PunjabAIR1955SC274 Ramesh Vithal PatilVs.State of Karnataka and Ors.2014(2)Crimes227(SC) K. Prema S. Rao and Anr.Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao and OrsAIR2003SC11 State of MaharashtraVs.Vishwanath Tukaram Umale and Ors.AIR1979SC1825 Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N. Ananti Padmanabiah etc.AIR1971SC1836 Madhav RaojiVs.StateAIR1952Bom385 Ashok Gyanchand Vohra vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr Kartar SinghVs.State of Punjab(1994)3SCC569 Sau Devakibai Vs State of Maharashtra Bombay HC decided on 24.07.2014 Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 February, 2011 Mahadeo Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075
Cr.P.C. S.482 Which offences can be quashed SC in Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Old Code Accused did not execute PRBond Hence, surety not enforceable Mahadeo Cr.P.C. S.511 Old Code Judge must watch that justice triumphs Cr.P.C. S.561A (Old Section) High Court can cancel bail in bailable offence Cr.P.C. S.Pleading guilty After explaining charge Court should inform about minimum sentence unless special reasons are shown Cr.P.C. T.I. Parade and purpose No provision in Cr.P.C. which obliges investigation agency to hold identification parade Cr.PC. S.197 Constitution Bench on necessity of How to deal with certain advocates Fair Trial and About Witnesses protection National I.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is explained IPC S.304B and 498A conviction under section 306 IPC S.304B charged but convicted for S.498A and 306 IPC S.411 and Police Act S.124 and Railway Property Act S.3 Possession of property need not be necessarily a subsisting possession JMFC has jurisdiction throughout District M.V. Act Old S.113 Conviction upheld though summons were served after 28 days MCOCA S.9 and 23 Private Complaint tenable Mens rea and Law and Order and Pith and Substance MRTP Act S.142 Prosecution not tenable for want of previous sanction Murder of Money Lender Case Old Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Accused did not execute PRBond Hence, surety not enforceable
