Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 301-318

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 301-318

Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 301-318

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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    .
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. 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
  33. 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.
  34. 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.
  35. 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.
  36. 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.

Also Read:-Important Judgments on Cr.P.C Section 259-300.

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."