Trace Your Case

Menu

Category: Criminal Procedure Code

Categories
Nature ad functions of criminal procedure

Ranchod Mathur Waswa v. State of Gujarat 1974 (3) SCC 581

ISSUE:

Whether delayed appointment of amicus curiae (court-appointed counsel) by itself amounts to denial of fair trial to an indigent accused?

RULE:

Indigence should not deny fair trial or justice. Competent advocates must be appointed, given sufficient time and complete papers, ensuring they can effectively handle complex cases.

The delay in appointment of amicus curiae, though disturbing, does not by itself result in denying fair trial. The same can be rectified by providing adequate time and material to the counsel.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Nature ad functions of criminal procedure

Sheonandan Paswan v. State of Bihar 1987 (1) SCC 288

ISSUE:

Whether the Supreme Court can go into a detailed inquiry into the facts and evidence of a case during the revision of a consent order under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”)?

Whether a consent order under Section 321 of the Code can be appealed against?

RULE:

Appeal against a consent order under Section 321 of the Code, which deals with withdrawal from prosecution, is not possible.

While revision of a consent order is possible under Section 397 of the Code, the court cannot go into a detailed inquiry into the facts and evidence of the case.

During revision, the court considers the materials only to satisfy itself about the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings in the order or judgement.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Nature ad functions of criminal procedure Uncategorized

Harpal Singh Chauhan v. State of U.P. AIR 1993 SC 2436

ISSUE:

Whether non-preparation of a panel of names for appointment as Public Prosecutors/ Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Code”) is a curable defect?

Whether general comments as to the non-suitability of certain persons for appointment to the post of Public Prosecutors/ Additional Public Prosecutors, satisfies the requirement of Section 24(4) of the Code?

Whether judicial review of appointment of advocates as District Government Counsels is permissible, and to what extent?

RULE:

For appointing Public Prosecutors/ Additional Public Prosecutors, the District Magistrate must necessarily prepare a panel of suitable names in consultation with the Sessions Judge.

Vague and general comments against the suitability of persons to be appointed to the post of Public Prosecutor/ Additional Public Prosecutor, does not satisfy Section 24 of the Code.

Effective consultation between District Magistrate and Sessions Judge is required for appointing Public Prosecutors and Additional Public Prosecutors under Section 24(4) of the Code.

While judicial review is permissible and the Courts can examine whether there was any infirmity in the decision-making process, Courts cannot substitute itself over the final decision of the authority vested with the decision-making power.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Nature ad functions of criminal procedure

Iqbal Ismail Sodawala v. State of Maharashtra 1975 (3) SCC 140

ISSUE:

Whether Session Judge’s failure to sign the judgement resulted in a failure to justice and vitiated the whole trial?

RULE:

If there is a substantial compliance with the requirements of law, a mere procedural irregularity would not vitiate the trial unless the same results in miscarriage of justice.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Judgement And Sentencing

Santa Singh v. The State of Punjab (1976) 4 SCC 190

ISSUE:

Whether noncompliance with s. 235(2) is merely an irregularity which can be cured by s. 465 or it is an illegality which vitiates the sentence?

RULE:

Section 235(2) is clear and explicit in its wording such that, when a judgment is rendered convicting the accused, he is, at that stage, to be given an opportunity to be heard in regard to the sentence and it is only after hearing him that the court can proceed to pass the sentence.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Trial

Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 2014 SC 1400: (2014) 3 SCC 92

ISSUE:

What is the stage at which power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised?
Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure could only mean evidence tested by cross-examination or the court can exercise the power under the said provision even on the basis of the statement made in the examination-in-chief of the witness concerned?
Whether the word “evidence” used in Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure has been used in a comprehensive sense and includes the evidence collected during investigation or the word “evidence” is limited to the evidence recorded during trial?
What is the nature of the satisfaction required to invoke the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to arraign an accused? Whether the power under Section 319(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised only if the court is satisfied that the accused summoned will in all likelihood convicted?
Does the power under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure extend to persons not named in the FIR or named in the FIR but not charged or who have been discharged?

RULE:

The word “inquiry” in section 319 therefore doesn’t mean an inquiry related to investigation but is an inquiry after the case is brought to the notice of the court on the filing of the charge-sheet. The court can thereafter proceed to make inquiries and it is for this reason that an inquiry has been given to mean something other than the actual trial.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor (1978) 1 SCC 240

ISSUE:

Whether or not a bail can be granted to the accused at the pre-trial stage or post-conviction stage by statutory appeal?

RULE:

The vital considerations are :-(a) The nature of charge, the nature of the evidence and, the punishment to which the party may be liable, if convicted, or conviction is confirmed. When the crime charged is of the highest magnitude and the punishment of it assigned by law is of extreme severity, the court may reasonably presume, some evidence warranting that no amount of bail would secure the presence of the convict at the stage of judgment, should he be enlarged; (b) whether the cause of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the court to be freed for the time being (c) Antecedents of the man and socio-geographical circumstances; and whether the petitoner's record shows him to be a habitual offender; (d) when a person, charged with a grave offence has been acquitted at a stage, the intermediate acquittal has pertinence to a bail plea when the appeal before this court pends. The ground for denial of provisional release, becomes weaker when a fair finding of innocence has been recorded by one court; (e) Whether the accused's safety may be more in prison than in the vengeful village where feuds have provoked the violent offence and (f) the period in prison already spent and the prospect of delay in the appeal being heard and disposed of. 

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Gurcharan Singh v. State AIR 1978 SC 179

ISSUE:

Whether the question of cancellation of bail is different from admission to bail under Section 439(1)?

RULE:

Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.
A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.
Section 439 empowers the Session Court or High Court to grant bail if accused is in custody.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here
Categories
Law Of Bail

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI (2012) 1 SCC 40

ISSUE:

What all factors should be taken into consideration while granting the bail to an accused?

RULE:

Bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception. Refusal of bail is a restriction on the personal liberty of the individual guaranteed under Article 21. When there is a delay in trial, bail should be granted to the accused.

Subscribe to Read More.
Join Now
Already a member? Log in here