Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 259-300

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 259-300

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 259-300

  1. After discharging from warrant case trying summons case under chapter 20 is valid-Cr.P.C Section 259-Pramatha Nath Mukherjee Vs. The State of West Bengal-Date of decision 11 March 1960 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1960 SC 810, 1960 SCR (3) 245.
  2. Cr.P.C Section 263 and 264 of old Cr.P.C Notes of evidence when need not be retained-Zafar and others Vs. State of U.P. -Equivalent Citation-1968 AWR (H.C.) 38281.
  3. Procedure of Production warrant- Cr.P.C Section 267- State of Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Praful B. Desai and Anr. -Date of decision 01.04.2003-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2003 SC 2053.
  4. Evidence on commission through VC allowed in Criminal cases- Cr.P.C Section 273- The State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhaurao Doma Udan and Others-Date of decision 28 July 1995 -Equivalent Citation-1996 (1) MhLj 214, (1995) 97 BOMLR 414, 1996 CriLJ 673 .
  5. Marathi deposition will prevail over English- Cr.P.C Section 277-Abdul Rahman vs. Emperor-Date of decision 14.12.1926-Equivalent Citation- 1927 (29) BOMLR 813.
  6. Not reading over deposition but making available for his reading was sufficient, Trial not vitiated-Cr.P.C Section 278-Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors. vs. State of  West Bengal-Date of decision 08.08.1989-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1989 SC 1785, 1989 AIR 1785, 1989 SCR (3) 735.
  7. Object is to ensure accuracy of evidence and to give witness concerned opportunity to point out mistakes- Cr.P.C Section278- Shivnarayan Kabra Vs. The State of Madras-Date of decision 23.08.1966-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1967 SC 986, 1967 AIR 986, 1967 SCR (1) 138.
  8. Test Identification Parade and purpose No provision in Cr.P.C which obliges investigation agency to hold identification parade-Cr.P.C Section 291A-Rajesh Kumar and Anr. Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi-Date of decision 25 February, 2008 -Equivalent Citation-(2008) 4 SCC 493.
  9. Not obligatory that the expert on the scientific issue of the chemical examination of substance, should be made to depose in proceedings before Court- Cr.P.C Section 293(1)- Kodadi Srinivasa Lingam and Ors.Vs. State of A.P. -Date of decision 23 October 2000 -Equivalent Citation-2001 CriLJ 602 A.P, 2000 (2) ALD Cri 763.
  10. Admitted documents can be read in evidence- Cr.P.C Section 294- Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Committee Vs. Suresh Sikaria-Date of decision 25 June 2013 -Equivalent Citation-2013 (4) GLT486.
  11. Application by accused shall be considered only statement of Section 313- Cr.P.C Section 294 –Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash -Date of decision 7 December, 1971 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1972 SC 975.
  12. Proof without examining the expert- Cr.P.C Section 294 –State of Punjab vs. Naib Din -Date of decision 28 September, 2001 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2001 SC 3955.
  13. Cr.P.C Section 296 What is formal evidence which can be taken on affidavit is explained- Constitution Bench- Dharam Pal and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and Anr. -Date of decision 18.07.2013-Equivalent Citation-MANU-SC-0720-2013.
  14. After committal Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to summon accused named in column no.2- Cr.P.C Section 299 and 193- Jayendra Vishnu Thakur Vs. State of Maharahstra and Anr. -Date of decision 11.05.2009-Equivalent Citation- (2009) 7 SCC 104.
  15. Cr.P.C Section 299 is applicable when the accused intentionally makes inaccessible and not merely when it is shown that it is not possible to trace him-Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of Maharahstra and Anr. -Date of decision11.05.2009-Equivalent Citation- (2009) 7 SCC 104.
  16. Cr.P.C Section 299 On surrender of accused attachment to be vacated- Nirmal Singh vs. State of Haryana-Date of decision 30.03.2000-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 1416.
  17. Cr.P.C Section 299 second part is exception to Section 33 of Evidence Act- Smt. Urmila Sahu Vs. State of Orissa-Date of decision 19.09.1997-Equivalent Citation-1998 CriLJ 1372 Orissa.
  18. Unless common evidence is recorded the evidence against the tried accused cannot be read against absconding accused- Cr.P.C Section 299-Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Abu Salem Ansari and Anr. -Equivalent Citation-(2011) 4 SCC 426.
  19. Cr.P.C Section 299(1) will be applicable if any of its conditions are satisfied- Monica Bedi Vs. State of A.P. -Date of decision 09.11.2010-Equivalent Citation- (2011) 1 SCC 284.
  20. Cr.P.C Section 300 Double jeopardy to operate as a bar the second prosecution and the consequential punishment thereunder, must be for ‘the same offence- Thomas Dana Vs. The State of Punjab-Date of decision 04.11.1958-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1959 SC 375 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 274.
  21. Cr.P.C Section 300 Double Jeopardy’s 3 requisites- Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. -Date of decision 23.04.2012-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2012 SC 2844.
  22. Cr.P.C Section 300 No Double Jeopardy in Dishonor of Cheque case even if there was a case under Section 420 IPC- State of Karnataka through CBI vs. C. Nagarajaswamy-Date of decision 7 October, 2005 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2005 SC 4308.
  23. Fresh trial not barred when the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance due to invaid sanction – Cr.P.C Section 300 P.C. Act Section 19- Baban Daud Vs. Emperor-Date of decision 12.08.2015-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1915 Bom 254, 31 Ind Cas 352 .

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 221-258.

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."