Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 441(3)
- Cr.P.C Section 441(3) and 209 Bail bond is for appearance before Sessions Court also- Free Legal Aid Committee Vs. State of Bihar-Date of decision 10 September 1981 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1982 SC 1463 , 1982 CriLJ 1943, (1982) 3 SCC 378.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 445
- Cr.P.C Section 445 Pending surety verification Magistrates has power to release accused on cash surety and thereafter asking him to furnish solvent sureties- Mr. Sajal Kumar Mitra and Ors.Vs.The State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 24 January 2011 -Equivalent Citation-2011 CriLJ 2744.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 446
- Cr.P.C Section 446 Forfeit first and then issue show cause notice to recover amount- Bhoja Babu Salian vs State Of Maharashtra-Date of decision 7 April, 1983 -Equivalent Citation-1983 (2) BomCR 165 .
- Cr.P.C Section 446 Show cause notice necessary- Ghulam Mehdi vs State Of Rajasthan-Date of decision 21 April 1959 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1960 SC 1185.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 451
- Cr.P.C Section 451 and 452 explained in Forest Act Case- Divisional Forest Officer and Anr. Vs. G.V. Sudhakar Rao and Ors. -Date of decision 31 October, 1985 -Equivalent Citation-MANU-SC-0069- 1985, 1986 AIR 328, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 680.
- Cr.P.C Section 451 and 457 Supreme Court directions regarding custody of seized properties- General Insurance Council and Ors.Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. -Date of decision 19 April 2010 -Equivalent Citation-2010 CriLJ 2883.
- Cr.P.C Section 451 Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release vehicle-Delhi Excise– Act State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender -Date of decision 6 January 2014 -Equivalent Citation-MANU-SC-0010-2014
- Cr.P.C Section 451 Party adversely affected should be heard before the Court makes an order for return of the seized property-State Bank of India Vs. Rajendra Kumar Singh and Ors. -Date of decision 25 September 1968 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1969 SC 401, 1969 SCR (2) 216.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 457
- Cr.P.C Section 457 and Excise Act Due to confiscation clause Magistrate has no jurisdiction to release vehicle- State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Narender-Date of decision 6 January 2014-Equivalent Citation-2014 ALL MR (Cri) 736.
- Cr.P.C Section 457 and Forest Act Magistrate has no jurisdiction to give interim custody- State of Karnataka Vs. K.A. Kunchindammed-Date of decision 16 April 2002 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2002 SC 1875.
- Cr.P.C Section 457 Aplication was directed to be decided at the end- Navin Vasantraj Modh Vs State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-2012 BomCR (Cri) 685.
- Cr.P.C Section 457 is not applicable in view of Section 50 of Wild Life Act- State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Lalloo Singh-Date of decision 20 July 2007 -Equivalent Citation-(2007) 7 SCC 334.
- Cr.P.C Section 457 Supreme Court guidelines for disposal of properties Mudaliar Vs. State of Gujarat -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2003 SC 638 .
- Cr.P.C Section 457 when it is proved that T.T. forms were submitted non-transfer of registration of vehicle does not matter- Prakash Tarachand Sakhre Vs. Ashok Pundloikrao Wajge and Anr. -Date of decision 10 March 2001 -Equivalent Citation-2001 CriLJ 3024.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 465
- Cr.P.C Section 465(2) Court to consider whether objection had raised objection PC Act Section 19-Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.V.K. Sehgal-Date of decision 8 October 1999 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1999 SC 3706.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 468
- Cr.P.C Section 468 Date of filing complaint and not cognizance be counted -Limination-Japani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty-Date of decision 27 July 2007 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2007 SC 2762.
- Cr.P.C Section 468(2) Bar of limitation on prosecutions was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time- State Of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh-Date of decision 2 April 1981 -Equivalent Citation-1981 SCALE (1) 619.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 473
- Cr.P.C Section 473 Delay should be explained in the complaint or separate application and Court should pass speaking order- Jethmal Himmatmal Jain and others Vs. State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 12 March 1981 -Equivalent Citation-1981 CriLJ 1813.
- Cr.P.C Section 473 Delay stood explained Cr.P.C Section 473 Interest of justice cannot be interpreted to mean in the interest of prosecution-Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. State through CBI -Date of decision 8 August 2000 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 2000 SC 2754.
- Cr.P.C Section 473 Notice to accused before taking cognizance is not contemplated –Mrs. Sarah Mathew Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases-Date of decision 26 November 2013 -Equivalent Citation-MANU-SC- 1210-2013.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 475
- Cr.P.C Section 475 and Court Martial (A.o.J) Rules, 1952 Notice to Commandant necessary Cr.P.C Section 475 Central Govt to decide Military Authority or Criminal Court Accused did not ask for counsel hence no prejudice Cr.P.C Section 482 and 397- Bombay HC- Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh Bedi Vs. The State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 7 May 2009 -Equivalent Citation-2010 CriL J315 .
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C Section 482
- Cr.P.C Section 482 Case transfers from one Magistrate to another Magistrate rejected- Modilal Kaluram Kachhara and etc.Vs. State of Maharashtra -Date of decision 20 September 1988 -Equivalent Citation-MANU-MH- 0041-1988.
Important Judgements on Cr.P.C old Sections.
- Cr.P.C Section 499(1) Old Code Accused did not execute PRBond Hence, surety not enforceable- Amrut Gajbhiye Vs. The State of Maharashtra -Equivalent Citation-1974 CriLJ 1075.
- Cr.P.C Section 511 Old Code Judge must watch that justice triumphs- Rengaswami NaickerVs.Muruga Naicken-Date of decision 30 July 1952 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1954 Mad 169, (1952) IIMLJ 497.
- Cr.P.C Section 561A (Old Section) High Court can cancel bail in bailable offence- Talab Haji Hussain Vs. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Anr. -Date of decision 7 February 1958 -Equivalent Citation-AIR 1958 SC 376 , 1958 SCR 1226.
- Pleading guilty after explaining charge Court should inform about minimum sentence unless special reasons are shown-State of GujaratVs. Krushnmorari Ramkrushna Gupta and Ors-Date of decision 1 March 1988 -Equivalent Citation- (1988) 2 GLR 965.
- Fair Trial and About Witnesses protection- National Human Rights Commission Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. -Date of decision 1 May 2009 -Equivalent Citation- (2009) 6 SCC 342.
- I.P.C. Section 34 AND 149 Distinction is explained- Nanak ChandVs.The State of Punjab-Date of decision 25 January 1955 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1955 SC 274, 1955 SCR (1) 1201.
- IPC Section 304B and 498A conviction under section 306-Ramesh Vithal Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors. -Date of decision 31 March 2014 -Equivalent Citation- 2014 (2) Crimes 227 (SC).
- IPC Section 304B charged but convicted for Section 498A and 306-K. Prema S. Rao and Anr.Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao and Ors-Date of decision 25 October, 2002 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2003 SC 11
- IPC Section 411 and Police Act Section 124 and Railway Property Act Section 3 Possession of property need not be necessarily a subsisting possession- State of Maharashtra Vs. Vishwanath Tukaram Umale and Ors. -Date of decision 2 August 1979 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1979 SC 1825, 1980 SCR (1) 120.
- JMFC has jurisdiction throughout District- Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Vs. B.N. Ananti Padmanabiah etc. -Date of decision 22 April 1971 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1971 SC 1836, 1971 SCR 460.
- M.V. Act Old Section 113 Conviction upheld though summons were served after 28 days- Madhav Raoji Vs. State– Equivalent Citation- AIR 1952 Bom 385.
- Mens rea and Law and Order and Pith and Substance-Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab-Date of decision 11 March, 1994 -Equivalent Citation- (1994) 3 SCC 569, JT 1994 (2) 423.
- Old Cr.P.C Section 499(1) Accused did not execute PRBond Hence, surety not enforceable-Mahadeo Amrut Gajbhiye Vs. The State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 9 November 1973 -Equivalent Citation- 1974 CriLJ 1075.
- PCPNDT Circular for online information was upheld- Radiological and Imaging Association Vs. Union of India (UOI) Through its Secretary-Date of decision 26 August 2011 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 2011Bom171
- Plea not signed by accused no interference-Diwan Bhai Vs Union of India and Ors -Date of decision 4 September 2001 -Equivalent Citation- MANU DE 1823 2001.
- Penalty and Punishment difference- Thomas Dana Vs. The State of Punjab-Date of decision 4 November 1958 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1959 SC 375, 1959 SCR Supl. (1) 274.
- Police Act Section 124 Possession of foreign made wrist watches unexplained Hence conviction upheld-Champaklal Ganeshmal Vs. The State of Maharashtra-Date of decision 5 November 1974 -Equivalent Citation- AIR 1975 SC 160 , 1975 SCR (2) 584.
- Sanction and Consent Explained-The Food Inspector Vs. M. Pandarinath and Anr. -Date of decision 24 September 1992 -Equivalent Citation- 1992 (2) APLJ 396, 1992 (3) ALT 588.
- TADA Section 15(1) Confession cannot be used against coaccused in other than joint trial-Hardeep Singh Sohal Vs. State of Punjab-Date of decision 28 September 2004 -Equivalent Citation- (2004) 11 SCC 612.