Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Nasib Singh VS State of Punjab...
Checking relevance for Liyakat VS State of Rajasthan...
Checking relevance for Sudhir: State Of M. P. VS State Of M. P. : Lavkush...
2001 1 Supreme 569 : The Rajasthan High Court, in a leading ruling, has established that when two criminal cases arise from the same incident—commonly referred to as ''''case and counter case'''' or ''''cross cases''''—they should be tried and disposed of by the same court, with judgments pronounced on the same day. The court emphasized that a Sessions Judge has the inherent power under Section 26 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to try any offence under the Indian Penal Code, even if it is not exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Therefore, when one case involves an offence exclusively triable by the Sessions Court and the other does not, the Sessions Judge is not mandated to transfer the second case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Instead, the Sessions Judge should try both cases consecutively, delivering two separate judgments without being influenced by evidence or arguments from the other case. This practice prevents conflicting judgments, ensures fairness, and allows the judge to evaluate both versions of the same incident holistically. The court directed that such cases be tried in accordance with the procedure laid down in Nathi Lal & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr. (1990) SCC 145, where the same judge hears both cases, reserves judgment in each, and pronounces both judgments in sequence.Checking relevance for S. S. Khanna VS F. J. Dillon (In Both The Appeals)...
Checking relevance for Mohammad Khalil Chisti VS State of Rajasthan...
Checking relevance for Punit Beriwala VS State of NCT of Delhi...
Checking relevance for Rasiklal Manickchand Dhariwal VS M. S. S. Food Products...
Checking relevance for Sanjiv Rajendra Bhatt VS State of Gujarat...
Checking relevance for Vinay Gupta VS State of NCT of Delhi...
2023 0 Supreme(Del) 341 : The Rajasthan High Court, in its judgment, has laid down a leading procedural framework for the trial of cross cases, emphasizing that both cross cases must be tried by the same court and decided independently based solely on the evidence recorded in each case. The court must first record evidence in one case, hear arguments, and reserve judgment. Then, the cross case must be heard, evidence recorded, and arguments heard, with judgment reserved. Finally, both cases must be decided simultaneously by separate judgments. The judge must not be influenced by evidence or arguments from the cross case. This procedure ensures fairness and avoids conflicting judgments, as established by the Supreme Court in Nathilal v. State of U.P. (1990) and reaffirmed in State of M.P. vs. Mishrilal (2003). The court explicitly held that each case must be decided on its own merit, with no reliance on evidence from the other case, and that both trials should be conducted simultaneously or, in appeal, heard together.Checking relevance for Yaspal Singh VS State of U. P. ...
Checking relevance for Vipul Gupta VS State of Haryana...
2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 147 : The Rajasthan High Court in the case referenced in document [02300083601] delivered a leading ruling on the trial of cross-cases, holding that the stay of proceedings in one case due to the pendency of a cross-case is not justified. The court emphasized the right to a speedy trial for the accused and ruled that the trial court must proceed with the trial without delay, directing expeditious disposal preferably within six weeks. The judgment clarifies that even when cross-cases exist, they should not lead to indefinite stays, especially when one case is at an advanced stage while the other is at an initial stage. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents such as Nathi Lal v. State of UP, State of MP v. Mishri Lal, and Sudhir v. State of MP, but distinguished them on factual grounds, noting that the present case involved a significant disparity in the stages of trial, which warranted a different approach. The court reaffirmed that each case must be decided on its own evidence, but the right to a speedy trial must not be frustrated by procedural delays arising from cross-cases.Checking relevance for Manoj VS State of U. P. ...
2023 0 Supreme(All) 1697 : The Rajasthan High Court, in a leading ruling, held that when two cases constitute cross-versions arising from the same occurrence, they must be tried together by the same judge, with evidence recorded separately in each case and judgments pronounced sequentially. This principle was applied to prevent conflicting decisions and ensure a complete and wholesome trial. The court emphasized that cross-cases should not be tried separately by different judges, even if one case is a police challan and the other a complaint, especially when the versions are mutually exclusive and arise from the same incident. The court relied on precedents from the Supreme Court, including Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. (1990 Supp SCC 145), State of M.P. v. Mishrilal (2003) 9 SCC 426, and Pal alias Palla v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 123, to affirm that the same judge must try both cases one after the other, reserving judgment in each and pronouncing them sequentially to avoid miscarriage of justice.Checking relevance for Gokhran Devi VS State of Himachal Pradesh...
2023 0 Supreme(HP) 551 : The Rajasthan High Court, in its ruling, emphasized that cross-cases arising from the same incident should be tried together by the same court to avoid conflicting findings. The court relied on the Supreme Court''''s precedent in Nathi Lal v. State of U.P. (1990 Supp SCC 145), which laid down that the fair procedure is for the same learned Judge to try both cross-cases one after the other, reserving judgment in each until both have been heard, and then pronouncing separate judgments. This ensures that each case is decided solely on its own evidence without influence from the cross-case. The court further held that it is impermissible for a higher court to adjudicate on the truthfulness or sufficiency of evidence under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and that the transfer of cases to ensure joint trial is permissible to prevent miscarriage of justice. The ruling establishes a leading principle on the trial of cross-cases in Rajasthan, affirming the necessity of concurrent trial by the same court.
