SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 28

G.B.PATTANAIK, K.RAMASWAMY
Omkar Namdeo Jadhao – Appellant
Versus
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana – Respondent


ORDER

Leave granted.

2. In this case we are concerned with the notice issued by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, on December 3, 1990 to the appellants for prosecution under Sections 194 and 195, IPC for alleged fabrication of the record and setting up a case said to be false against two ladies, Jamman and Laxmi said to be aged about 60 and 80 years respectively. The Additional Sessions Judge had stated that they are infirm persons; unable to walk and stand without the support of others, Consequently, it would be difficult to believe the version of the police that they pelted stones and kicked the police officers while the latter were discharging the official duty in apprehending Latur Hasan. While setting aside the charges framed against them, notice was issued under Section 340, Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the appellants under Sections 194 and 195, IPC.

3. It is seen that the observation made by the Sessions Judge, as confimed by the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in the impugned judgment dated 10.3.1992 made in Criminal Application No. 20/91 is based on 161 statements recorded during the investigation. Admittedly, no evidence has been recorded. The court should not com



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top