Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Accused Has No Right to Put Forward His Defence at the Time of Taking Cognizance or at the Time of Framing Charge 2011 Sc

Accused Has No Right to Put Forward His Defence at the Time of Taking Cognizance or at the Time of Framing Charge 2011 Sc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 108|Likes:
Justice B.S. Chauhan, & Justice T.S. Thakur in a case before Supreme court of India in Helios & Matheson ... vs Rajeev Sawhney & Anr Decided on 16 December, 2011 The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra case, (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence.
Justice B.S. Chauhan, & Justice T.S. Thakur in a case before Supreme court of India in Helios & Matheson ... vs Rajeev Sawhney & Anr Decided on 16 December, 2011 The law is that at the time of framing charge or taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material. No provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 grants to the accused any right to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. That right is granted only at the stage of the trial. Satish Mehra case, (1996) 9 SCC 766 holding that the trial court has powers to consider even materials which the accused may produce at the stage of Section 227 of the Code has not been correctly decided. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of charge the defence of the accused cannot be put forth. The acceptance of the contention of the accused would mean permitting the accused to adduce his defence at the stage of framing of charge and for examination thereof at that stage which is against the criminal jurisprudence.

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.4606 of 2011
 
Helios & Matheson InformationTechnology Ltd. & Ors
.
PetitionersVersusRajeev Sawhney & Anr.RespondentsWith
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) No.4672 of 2011
Pawan KumarPetitionerVersusRajeev Sawhney & Anr.Respondents
1
 
J U D G M E N TT.S. THAKUR, J.
1.These Special Leave Petitions arise out of an orderdated 6
th
May, 2011, passed by the High Court of Judicatureat
 
Bombay in Criminal Revision Application No.441 of 2008whereby the High Court has set aside order dated 13
th
August, 2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,Greater Bombay in Revision Applications No.449, 460 and853 of 2007 and restored that made by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47
th
Court, Esplanade, Mumbaitaking cognizance of offences allegedly committed by thepetitioners.2.Respondent No.1, Rajeev Sawhney filed CriminalComplaint No.20/SW/2007 before Additional ChieMetropolitan Magistrate, 47
th
Court, Esplanade, Mumbai,alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of 
2
 
IPC by the petitioners. The complaint set out the relevantfacts in great detail and made specific allegations to theeffect that petitioners had entered into a conspiracy todefraud him and for that purpose Shri Pawan Kumar,arrayed as accused No.4 in the complaint, had played anactive role apart from fabricating a Board resolution whenno such resolution had, in fact, been passed. On receipt of the complaint the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistraterecorded prima facie satisfaction about the commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 465, 467,468, 471, read with Section 120B of IPC, took cognizanceand directed issuance of process against the accusedpersons. Aggrieved by the said order, Revision PetitionsNo.449, 460, 853 of 2007 were filed by the accusedpersons before the Additional Sessions Judge, GreaterBombay, challenging the order taking cognizance and themaintainability of the complaint on several grounds. Therevision petitions were eventually allowed by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Greater Bombay by his order dated 13
th
August, 2008 and the summoning order set aside. TheAdditional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that
3

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->