Back
B.S.CHAUHAN, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Natasha Singh – Appellant
Versus
CBI (State) – Respondent
Certainly! Please provide the legal document content you'd like me to analyze, and I will generate the key points with the appropriate references as specified.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.4.2013 in Criminal Misc. Case No.1324 of 2013, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, by way of which it has affirmed the order dated 16.3.2013, passed by the Trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the appellant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), observing that examination of the witnesses sought to be examined by the appellant-accused was in fact unnecessary, and would in no way assist in the process of arriving at a just decision with respect to the case.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under: A. An FIR dated 10.8.1998 was registered under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the `IPC’) and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act 1988’) against the appellant and other accused persons. After the conclusion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 19.7.2001 by the inves
[No cases identified as bad law. There are no explicit references to any cases being overruled, reversed, abrogated, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated as bad law in the provided list. All treatments appear neutral or positive.]
**Natasha Singh v. Central Bureau of Investigation (State), (2013) 5 SCC 741**: Extensively cited and relied upon across numerous entries (e.g., Selvi J. Jayalalithaa VS State of Karnataka - 2013 7 Supreme 66, Rajesh Talwar VS C. B. I. - Crimes (2013), Inderjeet Kaur Kalsi VS NCT of Delhi - Dishonour Of Cheque (2013), Hanuman VS State of Rajasthan - 2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 1209, LALIT KUMAR PANIGRAHI VS STATE OF C. G. - 2014 0 Supreme(Chh) 124, Lalit Kumar Panigrahi v. State of Chhattisgarh - 2014 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 128, M. Lalitha VS State Represented by Inspector of Police - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 770, Akshi Thakur VS Parveen Sharma - 2015 0 Supreme(HP) 134, CHANDRAKANTH VS SARITHA - 2015 0 Supreme(Kar) 85, etc., up to Sanket Singh VS State of U. P. - 2024 0 Supreme(All) 1673). Phrases like "relied upon," "held as under," "reproduce a passage from," "in support of his contentions," and "Hon’ble Apex Court has held" indicate consistent positive treatment and approval, particularly regarding Section 311 Cr.P.C., fair trial, and witness examination powers.
**State of Bihar and Others, (2013) 14 SCC 461**: Frequently paired with Natasha Singh and cited positively (e.g., State Represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police VS Tr N Seenivasagan - 2022 3 Supreme 427, Karthik S. Nair, S/o. Suresh Kumar VS State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 541, Sandeep Sharma VS State of H. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(HP) 435, RAHUL DARBARI Vs ARUN KUMAR KHOBRAGADE & ORS. - 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11236, Rahul Darbari VS Arun Kumar Khobragade - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 752). Used to support applications for witness examination, with no negative qualifiers.
**State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2012 SC 750**: Cited alongside others in supportive contexts (e.g., Rajesh Talwar VS C. B. I. - 2013 7 Supreme 264, Sandeep Kumar VS State Of Punjab - 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 62, Sr. Sephy, D/o Joseph VS Central Bureau Of Investigation Kochi - 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 996).
**Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) v. State of Gujarat**: Referenced in lists of precedents without negative treatment (e.g., Selvi J. Jayalalithaa VS State of Karnataka - 2013 7 Supreme 66, Rajesh Talwar VS C. B. I. - Crimes (2013)).
**Other minor cases** (e.g., State of U.P., (2004) 10 SCC 598; Karnel Singh v. State of M.P., (1995) 5 SCC 518; Raminder Singh vs. State through CBI, (2012) 3 SCC 387; Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)): Routinely quoted or reproduced in passages supporting arguments on evidence and fair trial (e.g., Bablu Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2015 5 Supreme 482, Bablu Kumar VS State of Bihar - Crimes (2015), AG VS Shiv Kumar Yadav - Crimes (2015), AG VS SHIV KUMAR YADAV - 2015 6 Supreme 525).
[No cases explicitly distinguished. No phrases like "distinguished," "limited to facts," or similar qualifiers indicating differentiation appear in the list.]
**General principles cases** (e.g., Kalyani Baskar VS M. S. Sampornam - 2006 9 Supreme 823, Sudevanand VS State Through CBI - 2012 1 Supreme 329, Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh VS State Of Gujarat - 2004 3 Supreme 210, Zahira Habibullah Sheikh VS State Of Gujarat - 2006 2 Supreme 598, Rajendra Prasad VS Narcotic Cell Through Its Officer In Charge, Delhi - 1999 6 Supreme 4, Vijay Kumar VS State of U. P. - 2011 5 Supreme 321, RAJESWAR PRASAD MISRA VS State Of W. B. - 1963 0 Supreme(SC) 158, P. Sanjeeva Rao VS State of A. P. - 2012 4 Supreme 203, Talab Haji Hussain VS Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar - 1958 0 Supreme(SC) 8, T. Nagappa VS Y. R. Muralidhar - 2008 3 Supreme 196): These appear as standalone summaries of legal points (e.g., "Very Important Points," "Important Points") without explicit treatment language like "followed" or "overruled." They are cited descriptively for principles on fair trial, Section 311/391 Cr.P.C., retrial, bail cancellation, etc., implying neutral or contextual reference.
None. All citations use affirmative language (e.g., "relied upon," "held," "reproduce a passage") or are descriptive summaries without ambiguity. No phrases suggest doubt, limitation, or negative treatment. Fragmented entries (e.g., [Selvi J. Jayalalithaa VS State of Karnataka - 2013 7 Supreme 66, Rajesh Talwar VS C. B. I. - 2013 7 Supreme 264) consistently place cases in supportive lists alongside positively treated precedents like Natasha Singh.]
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
