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

2010 Supreme(SC) 18

V.S.SIRPURKAR, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
Harinarayan G. Bajaj – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


JUDGMENT:

V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted. Interpretation of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called "Cr.P.C." for short) and, more particularly, Sub-Section (4) thereof has fallen for consideration in this appeal.

2. The factual scenario:

A complaint was filed against three accused persons, being respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 herein for offence under Section 406 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `IPC') in the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. We need not go into the facts stated in the said complaint in view of the narrow question which falls for consideration in this appeal. The Trial Court took the cognizance of the offences on 03.04.1998 and issued process against respondent Nos. 2 to 4. The Trial Court proceeded to examine the witnesses before framing the charge. Number of revisions including the discharge application were filed by the accused and the trial went on up to 15.09.2005 when the Bombay High Court expedited the trial.

3. On 13.06.2006, the cross-examination of the first witness of the prosecution at the stage of evidence before charge was completed by the Advocate of the accused persons. This cross-examination ra

































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