Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 301-318
- Cr.P.C Section 301-Trial on Sunday without legal aid was set aside- Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Kasab Vs. State of Maharashtra -Date of decision 29.08.2012-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2012 SC 3565
- Cr.P.C Section 306 Pardon is not right Aapplicable without committal 307 applicable after committal-Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 3352.
- Cr.P.C Section 306(1) is invocable at precommitment Section 307 is invocable at post- commitment while state-Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary Vs. State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 3352
- Cr.P.C Section 306(1) Pardon is not right Aapplicable without committal 307 applicable after committal –Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs. State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 13 May 2009-Equivalent Citation-(2009) 6 SCC 498.
- Cr.P.C Section 306(1) Pardon Procedure-State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Surinder Mohan And Others-Date of decision-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 1862.
- Cr.P.C Section 306(4) Accused has no right of cross examination of the approver- A. Deivendran Vs. State of T.N. -Date of decision-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1998 SC 2821.
- Examination of approver is mandatory if pardon tendered before committal but not mandatory if tendered by sessions court after committal- Cr.P.C Section 306(4)(a)- Asokan L.S. Vs. State of Kerala-Date of decision 3 August 2005 -Equivalent Citation-2005 CriLJ 3848, 2005 (3) KLT 770.
- Cr.P.C Section 306(4)(a) Statement of approver is not admissibleunder Section 33 Evi Act-The State of Maharashtra Vs. Shanti Prasad Jain-Date of decision 29-09-1977-Equivalent Citation-1978 MhLJ 227.
- Cr.P.C Section 306(5) CJM and ACJM and CMM and ACMM have equal jurisdiction-Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 3352.
- After committal the approver need not be examined twice- Cr.P.C Section 307- Mrinal Das and Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura-Date of decision 5 September, 2011 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2011 SC 3753.
- Cr.P.C Section 307 is invocable at post- commitment while Section 306 is invocable at pre commitment state- Jasbir Singh vs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi and Ors-Date of decision 16 August 2001 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2001 SC 2734.
- Cr.P.C Section 307 pardon is by Court NDPS Act Section 64 is by executive later overrides-P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka-Date of decision 16 April, 2002 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2002 SC 1856 .
- Cr.P.C Section 309 Directions given not to grant adjournments casually-Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. Vs .R.S. Nayak and another.-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1992 SC 1701.
- Cr.P.C Section 309 It is neither permissible nor possible nor desirable to lay down an outer limit of time- N.G. Dastanevs. Shrikant S. Shivde and Anr. -Date of decision 3 May 2001 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2001 SC 2028.
- Magistrate new spared from adverse remarks for allowing Advocates misconduct in seeking adjournment- Cr.P.C Section 309- Bipin Shantilal PanchalVs.State of Gujarat and Anr. -Date of decision 22 February 2001 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2001 SC 1158
- Cr.P.C Section 309 Mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit- Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. Vs. R.S. Nayak and another. -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1992 SC 1701.
- Cr.P.C Section 309 Neither permissible nor possible nor desirable to lay down an outer limit of time-Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs. State of Assam-Date of decision 10 May 2001 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2001 SC 2231.
- On conviction accused to be taken into custody pending punishment- Cr.P.C Section 309- Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna-Date of decision-Equivalent Citation-AIR 1979 SC 1360, 1979 SCR (3) 169.
- Speedy trial is of the essence of criminal justice- Cr.P.C Section 309-P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka-Date of decision 16 April 2002 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2002 SC 1856.
- Supreme Court cannot fix time for conclusion of trials- Cr.P.C Section 309-P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka-Date of decision16 April 2002-Equivalent Citation-AIR 2002 SC 1856.
- Time cannot be fixed by Supreme Court for conclusion of trials- Cr.P.C Section 309- Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal-Date of decision 3 September 2002 -Equivalent Citation-(2002) 7 SCC 334.
- Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses- Cr.P.C Section 309- State of U.P. vs.Shambhu Nath Singh & Ors. -Date of decision 29 March 2001 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2001 SC 1403.
- When witnesses are present and accused causes adjournment Court can remand accused or direct payment of expenses present- Cr.P.C Section 309- Sasi Thomas Vs. State and Ors-Date of decision-Equivalent Citation- (2006) 12 SCC 421.
- Cr.P.C Section 311 Just decision does not necessarily mean a decision in favour of defence-Nageshwar Shri Krishna Ghobe Vs. State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 19 September 1972 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1973 SC 165, 1973 CriLJ 235, (1973) 4 SCC 23, 1973 2 SCR 377.
- Parties cannot control the Court’s discretion to have any additional evidence- Cr.P.C Section 311- Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan Vs. Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli -Date of decision 21 February 2003 -Equivalent Citation-2003 BomCR (Cri) 1103, 2003 (2) ALD Cri 44, 2004 CriLJ 150, 2003 (4) MhLj 73.
- Recall of witness allowed- Cr.P.C Section 311- Rajendra Prasad Vs.The Narcotic Cell-Date of decision 12 July 1999 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1999 SC 2292.
- The power of the Court was plenary to summon or even recall any witness at any stage of the case- Cr.P.C Section 311-Iddar and Ors. Vs. Aabida and Anr. -Date of decision 25 July 2007 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2007 SC 3029.
- Cr.P.C Section 311 to be invoked Essential for just decision- Rajendra Prasad vs The Narcotic Cell -Date of decision12 July 1999 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1999 SC 2292.
- What is Lacuna. No party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors- Cr.P.C Section 311-Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Vs. Union Territory Of Dadra And Nagar-Date of decision21 February 2003 -Equivalent Citation- 2003 BomCR (Cri) 1103, 2003 (2) ALD Cri 44, 2004 CriLJ 150, 2003 (4) MhLj 73.
- Witness recalled to depose as they turned hostile previously due to threats by the accused- Cr.P.C Section 311- Laxman alias Laxmayya Vs.The State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 9 May 2012 -Equivalent Citation- 2012 Cri.L.J. 2826.
- Prosecution-Cr.P.C Section 313- Accused be informed that he can decline to give answers and his inculpatory statements may be taken into consideration- Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab-Date of decision 14 September, 2012 -Equivalent Citation-2012 CriLJ 4657.
- Failure of accused to offer appropriate explanation or giving false answer may be counted as providing a missing link- Cr.P.C Section 313 AND PC Act- Basavaraj R. Patil and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others-Date of decision 11 October, 2000 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 3214
- Cr.P.C Section 313 Counsel cannot be examined- State of Maharashtra Vs. Maruti Dadu Kamble-Date of decision 1 December, 1987 -Equivalent Citation-1988 MhLJ 49, 1988 (1) BomCR 620, (1988) 90 BOMLR 4.
- Advocate cannot be examined but questionnaire for accused can be given- Cr.P.C Section 313(1)(b)-Basavaraj R. Patil and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others-Date of decision 11 October, 2000 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 3214.
- Statement is not evidence- Cr.P.C Section 313(1)(b) –Satyavir Singh Rathi Vs. State thr. C.B.I. -Date of decision 2 May, 2011 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2011 SC 1748.
- Personal exemption when can be granted- Cr.P.C Section 317- M/S. Bhaskar Industries Ltd vs M/S. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. -Date of decision 27 August 2001 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2001 SC 3625.
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.