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

2010 Supreme(SC) 983

AFTAB ALAM, R.M.LODHA
Bangarayya – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J. —

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. On a report filed by the appellant on September 1, 2002, a case was registered against 17 persons named as accused in the report. The police after investigation, submitted charge sheet under sections 143, 147, 451, 323, 427, 504, 506 read with section 149 of the Penal Code against all the accused named in the FIR, excepting accused nos. 2, 3 & 6. The learned magistrate proceeded with the trial summoning only those accused against whom the charge sheet was submitted. During the trial, prosecution witnesses 1 & 2 (examined on August 24, 2007 and February 2, 2008 respectively) in their deposition narrated the occurrence in detail and also named accused nos.2, 3 & 6 (respondent nos.2-4 herein), against whom the police had not submitted the charge sheet, among the offenders. The prosecution then filed a petition under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter ‘the Code’) for summoning those three accused as well for facing trial. The magistrate by a brief order passed on August 18, 2009, rejected the application. He took the view that the two witnesses were related to the complainant and n






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