LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label Code of Criminal Procedure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Code of Criminal Procedure. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 13, 2014

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 244, 245, 246 - Official complaint from Registrar General of High Court stating that the accused persons were guilty of using a fabricated and forged letter in the court with active connivance and conspiracy on their part - Summons issued - Application under s.245(2) Cr.P.C. rejected - Charges framed - Correctness of - Held: The charges framed clearly premature - There should be evidence before framing the charges - Opportunity to cross examine is lost - Order framing the charge quashed - Matter to go back to Trial Court - Prosecution to offer witnesses under s.244(1) Cr.P.C. and opportunity to cross-examine - Only thereafter Trial Court would proceed to decide as to whether the charges to be framed or not - Penal Code, 1860, Sections 177, 181, 182, 192, 196, 199, 209, 466, 468, 471, 474. The Registrar General of High Court made a complaint to the effect that the accused persons were guilty of using a fabricated and forged letter in the court with active connivance and conspiracy on their part. The CJM took cognizance of the complaint and ordered issue of summons. Accused approached the High Court by way of writ petition and it was dismissed. SLP was filed in Supreme Court and it was dismissed as premature. Appellant thereafter appeared before the CJM, obtained bail and moved an application for discharge. The trial court dismissed the application and proceeded to frame charges. Appellant approached the High Court by filing a writ petition which was dismissed. Hence the appeal. = AJOY KUMAR GHOSE .... APPELLANT Versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ANR. .... RESPONDENTS = 2009( March. Part ) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=34080

›
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 244, 245, 246 - Official complaint from Registrar General of High Court stating that the a...
Saturday, November 23, 2013

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.239 - Ambit of - Approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it u/s.239 CrPC - Discussed - Matrimonial case - Allegations of harassment for dowry and mental and physical torture by wife against husband (appellant no.3) and parents-in-law (appellant nos.1 and 2) - Cognizance by Court u/s.498A - Application by appellants for discharge u/s.239 CrPC - Dismissed by trial Court - Justification of - Held: Justified = The case at hand being a warrant case is governed by Section 239 Cr.P.C. for purposes of determining whether the accused or any one of them deserved to be discharged. A plain reading of Section 239 CrPC would show that the Court trying the case can direct discharge only for reasons to be recorded by it and only if it considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the accused has been made out.- It is well-settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The submissions of the accused has to be confined to the material produced by the police. Clearly the law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material.= Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat & Ors. …Appellants Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. …Respondents = Pulished in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx

›
      Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.239 - Ambit of - Approach to be adopted by the Court while exercising the powers vested in it u...