Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 221-258

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 221-258

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 221-258

  1. Convicted for Section 306 along with Section 498A though charged with Section 304B and 498A- Cr.P.C. Section 221- Prema S. Rao Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao -Date of decision 25 October, 2002 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2003 SC 11.
  2. Major and the minor offences must be cognate offences having main ingredients in common.- Cr.P.C. Section 222(2)-Samadhan Baburao Khakare and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. -Date of decision  3 March, 1995 -Equivalent Citation-1995 (2) MhLj 464, 1996 (1) BomCR 1, (1995) 97 BOMLR 759.
  3. Cr.P.C Section 222(2) Police Act Section124 conviction upheld though the charge was under Section 413 of IPC-Ramesh Singh vs. State Of Maharashtra-Date of decision 13 April 1993 -Equivalent Citation-1993 CriLJ 2743, 1993 (3) BomCR 138.
  4. On the application of accused the Magistrate may amalgamate cases. He can read one case evidence in the other- Cr.P.C. Section223- Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad Yadav Vs. State through C.B.I-Date of decision 26 August 2003 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2003 SC 3838.
  5. APP can choose and pick his witnesses- Cr.P.C. Section 226 and 231-Banti @ Guddu Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh-Date of decision 4 November, 2003 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2004 SC 261
  6. Charge of an offence not mentioned in charge sheet can be framed- Cr.P.C. Section 227-Union of India (UOI) Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr.-Date of decision 04.11.1978-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1979 SC 366.
  7. Material of accused not to be considered- Cr.P.C. Section 227-Willie (William) Slaney Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh-Date of decision 31 October 1955 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1956 SC 116, 1955 SCR (2)1140.
  8. Though Trial cannot consider documents of accused High Court can consider under Section 482- Cr.P.C. Section 227- Snehalata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal-Date of decision 25 January 2008 -Equivalent Citation- (2008) 1 CALLT 297 (HC).
  9. Cr.P.C Section 229 Subsequent plea of guilty accepted-State of Bombay Vs. Mohamadh Khan -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1960 Bom150 .
  10. Additional witness for prosecution can be allowed-Cr.P.C. Section 231-Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana-Date of decision 29.05.2013-Equivalent Citation- (2013) 14 SCC 434.
  11. Prosecution is not bound to examine all listed witnesses-Cr.P.C. Section 231and Evidence Act Section 114- Ram Deo Chauhan vs. State of Assam-Date of decision 10.05.2001-Equivalent Citation-(2001) 5 SCC 714.
  12. Accused upon conviction can be sent to jail until hearing on sentence- Cr.P.C. Section 235(2)-Narpal Singh & Others vs. State Of Haryana-Date of decision 01.02.1977-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1977 SC 1066.
  13. To hear on sentence de novo trial not necessary- Cr.P.C. Section 235(2)-Modilal Kaluram Kachhara And Etc. vs. State Of Maharashtra-Date of decision 20 September 1988 -Equivalent Citation-1988 CriLJ 1901.
  14. Magistrate need not write order for framing charge but has to write order for discharge- Cr.P.C. Section 239-Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal-Date of decision 5 January 2000 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 522.
  15. If warrant is not applied for, it is Court’s discretion to issue warrant to the absent witness- Cr.P.C. Section 242(2) and 254(2) and 87-Dattatraya Dagduji Borkute Vs. Mohanlal Chandmal Phapal And Ors-Date of decision 31 October, 1995 -Equivalent Citation-1996 CriLJ 987
  16. Complaint can be dismissed before charge- Cr.P.C. Section 245(2)-Cricket Association of Bengal and ors Vs. State of West Bengal and ors. -Date of decision 24 March 1971 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1971 SC 1971, 1971 AIR 1925, 1971 SCR 200.
  17. Opportunity to adduce EBC should be given to the Complaint- Cr.P.C. Section 245(2)-Luis De Piedade Lobo Vs.Mahadev Vishwanath Parulekar -Date of decision 5 August 1983 -Equivalent Citation-1984 CriLJ 513 .
  18. Additional witnesses allowed Absence of any provision on particular matter does not mean that there is no such power in criminal court- Cr.P.C. Section 246 –Hansraj Harjiwan Bhate and Ors.Vs. Emperor-Date of decision  09 April 1940 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1940 Nag 390.
  19. Conviction not bad for failure to adopt procedure applicable to complaint-warrant case- Cr.P.C. Section 248(2)-Gurmukh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Punjab -Equivalent Citation- (1972) 4 SCC 805.
  20. Cr.P.C Section 249 cannot be invoked after charge-Sagunabai Lahanu Shende Vs.Patru Goma Lengure and others-Date of decision 04.09.1078-Equivalent Citation-1979 MhLJ 18.
  21. Magistrate is not empowered to restore a complaint- Cr.P.C. Section249- Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal vs. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar Porwal-Date of decision-Equivalent Citation-1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463
  22. Old Act For these sections trial commences in warrant case even before charge- Cr.P.C. Section 250 and 350- Dagdu Govindshet Wani Vs. Punja Vedu Wani-Date of decision 3 September, 1936 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1937 Bom 55, (1936) 38 BOMLR 1189, 166 Ind Cas 598.
  23. Adalat Prasad case would not come in way for objection to jurisdiction- Cr.P.C. Section 251-IND Synergy Ltd. Vs. Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. -Date of decision 16.05.2014-Equivalent Citation-III (2014) BC 433 (Del).
  24. If the admitted facts do not amount to offence accused cannot be convicted- Cr.P.C. Section 251-Jhantu Das Vs. State of Tripura-Date of decision 20.01.2007-Equivalent Citation-(2007) 2 GLR 443.
  25. Plead guilty for lessor offences set aside as informant had no opportunity to apply for adding charges or accused-Cr.P.C. Section 252-Girraj Prasad Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors-Date of decision 30.09.2013-Equivalent Citation-2013 (12) SCALE 275
  26. Magistrate should issue summons on request of the prosecution, but can refuse to adjourn if no efforts taken to serve the summons- Cr.P.C. Section 255- State of Maharashtra Vs. Maruti Dadu Kamble-Date of decision 01.12.1987-Equivalent Citation-1988 MhLJ 49.
  27. Hearing on sentence gives accused to show special reason for less than minimum punishment- Cr.P.C. Section 255(2) and Prohibition Act Section 66(1) (b)- Jethalal Girdharlal Vs. State of Gujarat-Date of decision 06.02.1984-Equivalent Citation- (1984) 2 GLR 964 .
  28. Magistrate has to hear the accused on sentence- Cr.P.C. Section 255(2) and Section 66(1) (b)-Jethalal Girdharlal Vs. State of Gujarat-Date of decision 06.02.1984-Equivalent Citation-MANU-GJ-0206-1984.
  29. Magistrate has no jurisdiction to restore a dismissed complaint- Cr.P.C. Section256 and 249-Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal-Date of decision 17.08.1995-Equivalent Citation-1996-2- MhLj 463, (1996) 3 RCR (CRIMINAL) 563, 1996 CIVILCC 592, (1996) CRILJ 29.
  30. No revision lies against order under section- Cr.P.C. Section 256-Om Gayatri and company Vs. State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 20 October 2005 -Equivalent Citation- 2006 Cr.L.J. 601.
  31. Court should not insist for presence of particular person should not dismiss if evidence already recorded- Cr.P.C. Section 256 –The Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs. Keshvanand -Date of decision 16 December 1997 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1998 SC 596.
  32. Magistrate cannot restore complaint- Cr.P.C. Section 256- Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajaram Rasker Vs. Kantilal Virchand Vora & another-Date of decision 17.07.1997-Equivalent Citation-1998 CriLJ 3754, LQ 1997 HC 3019.
  33. Magistrate has no power to recall the dismissal order-Cr.P.C. Section 256- Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. -Date of decision 16 October 1982 -Equivalent Citation-1983 (1) Bom CR 416.
  34. Magistrate not empowered to restore dismissed complaint- Cr.P.C. Section 256 – Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Anr. Vs. S.N. Thakur and Anr. -Date of decision 25.04.1986-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1986 SC 1440.
  35. Magistrate has to dismiss complaint unless decided to adjourn for some cause- Cr.P.C. Section 256(1)- Rama Krishna Vs. S. Rami Reddy-Date of decision 29.04.2008-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2008 SC 2066.
  36. After summons only Magistrate can close case-Cr.P.C. Section258-State of Maharashtra Vs. Maruti Dadu Kamble– Date of decision 01.12.1987-Equivalent Citation-1988 MhLJ 49, 1988 (1) BomCR 620, (1988) 90 BOMLR 4.

DISCLAIMER: The above judgments are posted for informational purpose ONLY. Printout’s from this website are not admissible citation in the Court of Law. For a court admissible copy contacts your advocate.

Also Read:-Important Judgments on Cr.P.C Section 200 to 220.

Feel free to Share this

Bhupendra Sharma

"Bhupendra Sharma is a practicing lawyer at Rajasthan High Court who completed his graduation from the University of Rajasthan. He has pursued his LLM from Acharya Nagarjuna University. He is also a degree holder in Master of Education and Master of Business Administration."