Back
RAJ BEER SINGH
Randeep Singh Surjewala – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. application for quashing proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 2. innocence and delay in trial affecting fair trial rights. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. challenge to charge based on legal sufficiency. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. defense arguments regarding prosecution and delays. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's review of previous orders. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. principles regarding the right to a speedy trial. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 7. assessment of evidence and trial management considerations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 8. requirement for the prosecution to maintain integrity in document production. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 9. understanding section 91 crpc in practice. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
| 10. court's ruling on the admissibility of documents and charges. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 11. denial of application for quashing. (Para 35) |
| 12. final dismissal of application under section 482 crpc. (Para 36) |
JUDGMENT
Raj Beer Singh, J.
Heard Sri S.G. Husnain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Sarita Gupta, Sri Ajay Kumar Kashyap, Sri Shivam Yadav and Sri Syed Mohd. Faisal, learned counsels for the applicant and Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri Vikas Sahai, learned A.G.A. fo
The right to a speedy trial is integral to the right to free and fair trial under Article 21, impacted by delays and the non-availability of documentary evidence.
The right to a speedy trial is integral to Article 21 of the Constitution, and unreasonable delays due to prosecution can infringe this right, potentially warranting a quashing of proceedings.
The right to a speedy trial is constitutionally protected under Article 21, and unreasonable delays, particularly when not caused by the accused, can warrant quashing ongoing criminal proceedings.
(1) Documents which were not part of charge-sheet, but seized by investigating agency during investigation of offence, cannot be withheld by prosecution merely on the ground that documents sought to ....
The order passed on application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. was interlocutory in nature. The accused persons had not been summoned to appear before the Court concerned. The investigation in the....
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental, and inordinate delays in criminal proceedings can lead to quashing of the prosecution.
The accused has the right to present defense witnesses in a trial, and the trial court must issue summons unless there are valid grounds for refusal, ensuring that fair trial rights are upheld.
The right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is fundamental and must be upheld, with inordinate delays in prosecution warranting quashing of proceedings.
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
