https://t.

me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

CR.P.C. CASE LAWS

 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs

Law College Notes & Stuffs

For more stuff like this, Join here.

Law College Notes & Stuffs
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
The State of Bihar vs Chandra Bhushan
Singh & Ors. AIR 2001 Supreme Court
429
Attiq-Ur-Rehman Vs.Municipal
Corporation of Delhi and
anotherAIR1996SC1267
Thomas DanaVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1959SC375
Republic of Italy thr. Ambassador and
Ors.Vs.Union of India (UOI) and
Ors.2013(1)SCALE462
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patelvs.The State of
Gujarat and Anr.AIR2001SC567
In Re_ Sikandarkhan Mahomedkhan
1920(22)BOMLR200
EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji
NarangikarAIR1931Bom313
Praphakar Vs. The State of Maha 2012
Cri.L.J.4726
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of
Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567
Pankajbhai Nagjibhai Patel vs The State Of
Gujarat AIR 2001 SC 567
Shidlingappa
GurulingappaVs.EmperorAIR1926Bom416
Chatar Singh vs State Of
M.P.AIR2007SC319
Hariom @ Kalicharan Shiriram and anr Vs.
the State of Maharashtra 1994(2) Bom
C.R.219
Emperor vs Piru Rama Havaldar27
BOMLR 1371
Jagat Bahadur Singh Jagat Bahadur
SinghVs.State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR
1966 SC 945
Cr.P.C. S.2(d) Charge sheet by RPF officer
for offence under Railway Property Act can
be treated as complaint of the RPF
Cr.P.C. S.4 In absence of special court the
regular court can try the offence
Cr.P.C. S.4 The words Punishment and
Penalty are explained in
Cr.P.C. S.4 Union Govt was directed to
constitute special court
Cr.P.C. S.4(2) When the special statute does
not prescribe procedure Cr.P.C. is applicable
Cr.P.C. S.9 Additional Sessions Judge can
hear appeal
Cr.P.C. S.9(3) 194 and 409 Assistant and
Additional Sessions Judges exercise
jurisdiction of Sessions Court but they are
separate Courts
Cr.P.C. S.28 Assistant Sessions Judge should
not be allotted with case punishable with
more than 10 years
Cr.P.C. S.29 and S.138 NI Act Magistrate
has no pecuniary limit for compensation
Cr.P.C. S.29 Magistrate has no pecuniary
limit for compensation
Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate fine should be
considered for the purpose of appeal
Cr.P.C. S.31 Aggregate sentence not to
exceed 14 years when consecutive SC says
Cr.P.C. S.31 and 427(1) Accused convicted
in 3 cases His sentence of 22 years brought
down by giving concurrence in two cases
Cr.P.C. S.31 and IPC S.71 separate sentences
are subject to the provisions of Section 71,
Indian Penal Code
Cr.P.C. S.31 Appellate court can inflict the
Trial Court's limited punishment only
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Reg.Vs.Tukaya Bin TamanaILR1875 1
Bom 214
Sunil Anandrao Sawant vs Government Of
Maharashtra 2010CriLJ3579
Nanak ChandVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1955SC274
detention D.K. Basu Vs State of West
Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610
R.P. VaghelaVs.State of
Gujarat2002CriLJ3082
Afak Shabbir Khan vs The State Of
Maharashtra & Anr
2013BomCR(Cri)242(DB)
Arnesh KumarVs.State of
BiharAIR2014SC2756
ManikandanVs.S. I. of Police, Nallalam
Police Stn2008CriLJ1338
Joginder KumarVs.State of U.P. and
Ors.(1994)4SCC260
Jayendragiri Anandgiri
GoswamiVs.Narcotics Control Bureau and
Anr.2005CriLJ3190
Gajanan P. Lasure Vs. The Director
General of Police and ors 2009(4)
Mh.L.J.399
Raghuvansh Dewanchand BhasinVs.State
of Maharashtra and AnrAIR2011SC3393
State Through Cbi vs Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar AIR1997SC2494
Shaikh RahemanVs.State of
Maharashtra1991(1)BomCR263
M.P. Sharma and Ors.Vs.Satish
ChandraAIR1954SC300
State of GujaratVs.Shyamlal Mohanlal
Choksi MANU-SC-0383-1964
State of Gujarat Vs. Shyamlal Mohanlal
Choksi AIR 1965 SC 1251
Cr.P.C. S.31 For S.457 and 380 IPC
Sentence may be either for both or for one
but should not greater
Cr.P.C. S.31 Separate sentence to run
consecutive after life has been discussed
Cr.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is
explained
Cr.P.C. S.41 and Constitution A.21
Directions w.r.t. arrest and
Cr.P.C. S.41 and Contempt of Courts Act
S.10 Mere handcuffing without prior
permission, in justifiable circumstances does
not amount to contempt
Cr.P.C. S.41 Mentioning reasons in the arrest
panchanama is held sufficient compliance of
recording reasons for arrest
Cr.P.C. S.41(1) and 41A and S.498A of IPC
Directions to police and Magistrates
Cr.P.C. S.41(1)(d) Accused needs to bailed
or not is discussed
Cr.P.C. S.56(1) Magistrate to ensure
compliance of directions given
Cr.P.C. S.57 Accused in NCB custody
arrested in another crime should be produced
before magistrate within 24 hours
Cr.P.C. S.57 and deemed suspension of
accused public servant
Cr.P.C. S.70 and 71 No Arrest on cancelled
warrant. Warrant register be maintained
Cr.P.C. S.73 Warrant can be issued before
charge sheet and for investigation purpose
Cr.P.C. S.79 Magistrate can issue warrant for
execution beyond his local jurisdiction
Cr.P.C. S.93 and 94 Search and Seizure from
accused not violative of fundamental rights
Cr.P.C. S.94 is not applicable to accused
Cr.P.C. S.94(1) Power to issue summons to
produce document is not applicable to
accused
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Pravinsingh and anotherVs.Biharilal Singh
and another 1989 Cri LJ 1386) (Bom)
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi Vs. Sunil and
Another, 2001 Cri.L.J. 504
Khet SinghVsUnion of India
(UOI)AIR2002SC1450
State Of Maharashtra & Ors.Vs.Sudhir
Vasant Karnataki Etc. Etc.MANU-SCOR-
47069-2014
State Govt. of NCT of DelhiVs.Sunil and
Another2001CriLJ504
Bombay HC Full bench Sudhir Vasant
KarnatakiVs.The State of Maharashtra
2011 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 326 _ 2011 ALL
MR (Cri) 96
Sunder Singh vs State Of Uttar Pradesh
AIR1956SC411
Suresh NandaVs.C.B.I.AIR2008SC1414
The State of Maharashtra and
Anr.Vs.Mangali Dewaiyya
Pupalla1994MhLJ483
Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of
Maharashtra2006(5)MhLj243
Pramila Navin ShahVs.State of
Maharashtra &
Ors2005(15)CriminalCC1051
Dattatraya Mahadu TikkalVs.The State of
Maharashtra2014(1)BomCR(Cri)439
Pravin Vijaykumar Taware,Vs.The Special
Executive Magistrate
2009(111)BOMLR3166
Rajesh Suryabhan NayakVs.The State of
Maharashtra, 2006(5)MhLj243
Noor Saba Khatoon Vs. Mohd. Quasim
AIR 1997 SC 3280
Mohd. Ahmed KhanVs.Shah Bano Begum
and OrsAIR1985SC945
Cr.P.C. S.97 Search can be conducted in a
place other than mentioned in warrant
Cr.P.C. S.100 and S.27 Evi Act Witnesses
not required
Cr.P.C. S.100 Seizure panchanama prepared
at customs office instead of spot did not
cause prejudice Hence relied
Cr.P.C. S.100 Whether immovable property
is included or not referred to larger bench
Cr.P.C. S.100(5) and Evi Act S.27 Witnesses
is not required
Cr.P.C. S.102(1) Property does not include
immovable property
Cr.P.C. S.103 Applicable to search of a place
and not of a person. Hence, independent
witnesses not necessary
Cr.P.C. S.104 Passport can be impounded by
Passport Authority and not by Police
Cr.P.C. S.107 and 116 No provision to ask
for interim bond
Cr.P.C. S.107 and 123 No interim bond and
CJM reduced bond
Cr.P.C. S.107 No provision to ask for interim
bond
Cr.P.C. S.107 Sessions Judge has to interfere
if action is illegal
Cr.P.C. S.116 Training to Executive
Magistrates directed by High Court
Cr.P.C. S.123(2) and (3) CJM exercised
jurisdiction
Cr.P.C. S.125 and S.3 of MWPOD Act
Rights of mior children and unmarried
daughter are protected
Cr.P.C. S.125 applicable to Muslim divorced
women also
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Allabuksh Karim ShaikhVs.Smt.
Noorjahan Allabuksh Shaikh and
another1994MhLJ1376
Smt. Saroj Govind Mukkawar Vs.Smt.
Chandrakalabai Polshetwar
2009(4)MhLj665
Nandlal Wasudeo BadwaikVs.Lata Nandlal
Badwaik and Anr.AIR2014SC932
Bakulabai and Anr.Vs.Gangaram and
Anr.(1988)1SCC537
Jaiminiben Hirenbhai VyasVs.Hirenbhai
Rameshchandra VyasDecided On_
19.11.2014
Jagdish JugtawatVs.Manju Lata and
Ors.(2002)5SCC422
Shivaji Baburao Bhabad @ Bhawad
Vs.Sau. Alka Shivaji Bhabad Criminal
Writ Petition No. 955 of 2009 decided on
14.01.2010
Jagir SinghVs.Ranbir Singh and
Anr.AIR1979SC381
Chinnappaiyan ChellandiVs.Chinnathayee
Chinnappaiyan2010(1)Crimes835
Sau. Manda R. Thaore Vs. Sh. Ramaji
Ghanshyam Thaore Criminal Revision
Application No. 317-2006Decided On_
20.04.2010
Syed Mohsin Ali Syed Shaukat AliVs.Smt.
Noorus Saher MANU-MH-0996-2005
Savitaben Somabhai BhatiyaVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC1809
Shantha @ Ushadevi and Anr.Vs.B.G.
ShivananjappaAIR2005SC2410
Rajesh Bhiwaji NandeVs.State of
Maharashtra and Ors.2005(2)MhLj977
Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273
Cr.P.C. S.125 application for muslim child is
tenable
Cr.P.C. S.125 Daughter in law was directed
to maintain mother in law
Cr.P.C. S.125 DNA Test prevails over the
presumption
Cr.P.C. S.125 Illegitimate child is entitled for
maintenance
Cr.P.C. S.125 Judgment shall contain reasons
for finding for grant of maintenance from the
date of application
Cr.P.C. S.125 Maintenance by Family Court
to major daughter was upheld
Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son is not entitled for
maintenance
Cr.P.C. S.125 Major son though student is
not entitled for maintenance from father
Cr.P.C. S.125 Permission granted to amend
petition
Cr.P.C. S.125 Second wifes maintenance
rejected but compensation granted in revision
Cr.P.C. S.125 Talaq must be for reasonable
cause and be preceded by attempts at
reconciliation
Cr.P.C. S.125 Woman married by Hindu man
having living spouse is not entitled for
mainteance
Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive applications are
unnecessary and Limitation is not barred
when the arrears upto date are included by
interim application
Cr.P.C. S.125(3) Successive orders of one
month imprisonment upheld
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery defence not
applicable after divorce
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Dalip SinghVs.RajbalaII(2007)DMC273
Gita Vs. Chandrasekhar
M. Chinna
KaruppasamyVs.Kanimozhi2015ALLMR(
Cri)615
Chanda Preetam WadateVs.Preetam
Ganpatrao Wadate 2002(2)MhLj482
Vanamala (Smt)Vs.H.M. Ranganatha
Bhatta(1995)5SCC299
Ashok Yeshwant SamantVs.Smt. Suparna
Ashok Samant and another1991CriLJ766
Ahmed Noormohmed BhattiVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2005SC2115
Rajesh Ramrao Raut Vs. The State of
Maharashtra and Ors. 2003 Cri.L.J
Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and
Anr.2013CriLJ776
Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (Govt. of N.C.T.
of Delhi)AIR1999SC3596
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
and Ors.2012ACR1859
GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and
anr.AIR2014SC1198
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822,
BabubhaiVs.State of Gujarat and
Ors.(2010)12SCC254
Ashi Devi and Ors.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi)MANU-SC-0526-2014
Gosu Jayarami Reddy Vs. State of A.P.
(2011) 11 SCC 766
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Adultery not applicable to
divorcee
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Divorced on cruelty ground
is till entitled for maintenance
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) includes adultery by
divorced wife
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Isolated instance of adultery
is not sufficient to deny maintenance
Cr.P.C. S.125(4) Wife does not include
divorcee
Cr.P.C. S.127(1) Precondition to deposit
arrears cannot be put
Cr.P.C. S.151 is not ultravires merely
because it can be misused
Cr.P.C. S.151(3)_
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 156(3) If the offence is
same there cannot be two FIRs. Magistrate
can treat application as a complaint
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 177 The IO can forward
the FIR to the police station having
jurisdiction if the offence was beyond own
jurisdictiono
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 198A Police can
investigate S.494 with 498A of IPC as
S.498A is cognizable
Cr.P.C. S.154 and 354 The person who
lodges the FIR be called the Informant and
not the Complainant
Cr.P.C. S.154 FIR reasonableness or
Credibility of the said information is not a
condition precedent for registration of a case
Cr.P.C. S.154 For deciding tenability of two
FIRs sameness test should be applied
Cr.P.C. S.154 In a 9 years old theft case held
that mere delay itself is not a ground to
discard a case
Cr.P.C. S.154 Overwriting limited to
converting 4 to 5 in FIR is immaterial.
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and
anr.2014(11)SCALE541
Mrs. Charu Kishor Mehta and etc.Vs.State
of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486
KumariVs.Govt. of U.P. and
Ors.2014CriLJ470
Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of
Goa2009CriLJ4655
Mrs. Charu Kishor MehtaVs.State of
Maharashtra and Addl. Commissioner of
PoliceDecided On_ 00.11.2010
Sone Lal And Ors AIR 1978 SC 1142
Charu Kishor Mehta and etc. etc.Vs.State
of Maharashtra and Anr.2011CriLJ1486
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Ors. vs.
State of Karnataka and Ors
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822
Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614
Surender Kaushik and Ors.Vs.State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors.AIR2013SC3614
State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan
Lal And Ors1992 AIR 604
Satish Narayan SawantVs.State of
Goa2009CriLJ4655
Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR1965SC1185
Cr.P.C. S.154 Person who lodges FIR is
called Informant and who files complaint is
called complainant
Cr.P.C. S.154 Police cannot refuse to register
the F.I.R. under the pretext of preliminary
inquiry when cognizable offences are made
out
Cr.P.C. S.154 Police is bound to register
F.I.R. Lalita
Cr.P.C. S.154 police officer going to the
place of occurrence to make some survey
does not amount to making an investigation
doc.
Cr.P.C. S.154 Police shall register FIR
instead of ignoring as civil dispute
Cr.P.C. S.154 Recording FIR is an official
act and has such presumption
Cr.P.C. S.154 Reliability genuineness and
credibility of the information are not the
conditions precedent Mrs.
Cr.P.C. S.154
Cr.P.C. S.154 Sections 195 and 340 do not
come in the way of investigation by police.
On the basis of such investigation the Court
can file a complaint
Cr.P.C. S.154 There cannot be two FIRs of
the same person of same incident
Cr.P.C. S.154 When a FIR is already there
sameness test shall be used for the
subsequent FIRs
Cr.P.C. S.154 When can the Court pass
appropriate orders
Cr.P.C. S.154 When information was cryptic
the police officer going to the place of
occurrence to make some survey is not an
investigation
Cr.P.C. S.155 Police can investigate a non-
cognizable offence under EC Act along with
S.420 IPC
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Dashrath Kishan Kotkar and Anr.Vs.State
of Maharashtra1986MhLJ986
Vithal Puna Koli (Shirsath) and Ors. Vs.
The State of Maharashtra-MH-0633-2006
State of Maharashtra vs. Dharmendra
Ambar Mohite (10.09.1998 - BOMHC)
MukhedkarVs.The State of
Maharashtra,1983CriLJ1833
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmuk 2008CriLJ376
Atul Son of Shridhar KapleVs.State of
Maharashtra, through Police Station
Officer2011 113 BOMLR1549
Sakiri VasuState of U.P. and others and
other cases MANY CASES
Pravin Chandra ModyVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR1965SC1185
Sheshrao and Ors.Vs.The State of
Maharashtra and Ors.24.07.2015
Satvinder Kaur Vs.State (1999)8SCC728
Alpic Finance Ltd.vsP. Sadasivan and
Anr.AIR2001SC1226
Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali @ Deepak and
Ors. 2013CriLJ754
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs)
(R.R. Chari etc followed )Gopal Das
Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Assam and
Anr.1961CriLJ39
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) and (3) Once permission is
obtained the procedure applicable to
cognazable offences is applicable
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Obtaining Magistrate's
permission is necessary
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) permission was not
obtained Hence prosecution for offence of
S.145 Police Act was held untenable
Cr.P.C. S.155(2) Prosecution for S.124 of
Bom Police Act quashed for want of
permission Avinash Madhukar
Cr.P.C. S.156 and 397 156(3) of Cr.PC
merely mean that an alleged cognizable
offence should be investigated
Cr.P.C. S.156 S.173(3) and s.190(1)(c).
Cr.P.C. S.156
Cr.P.C. S.156(1) and 173 Police officer can
investigate E.C. Act offence along with
S.420
Cr.P.C. S.156(1) Charge sheet quashed for
want of jurisdiction
Cr.P.C. S.156(2) Police can investigate any
cognizable offence and to submit charge
sheet before competent court
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and IPC S.420 It must also
be shown that there existed a fraudulent and
dishonest intention at the time of commission
of the offence
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 173(8) Kinds of order
under S.156(3) are (i) Initial Investigation,
(ii) Further Investigation, (iii) Fresh or de
novo or re-investigation-Detail
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Passing order of
S.156(3) or Search Warrant is not taking
Cognizance
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 190 Taking Cognizance
on complaint means verification etc.
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Nirmaljit Singh HoonVs.The State of West
BengalAIR1972SC2639
SachinVs.The State of
Maharashtra2014ALLMR(Cri)1833
Ramdev Food Products Private LimitedVs.
State of Gujarat2015(3)SCALE622
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam
Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363
Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmuk2008CriLJ3761
Vasanti DubeyVs.State ofMadhya
Pradesh2012CriLJ1309
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. Vs. .
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul. 2012
Bom C R(Cri) 375
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761
U.P. HC in Chandrika SinghVs.State of
U.P2007CriLJ3169
Mrs Priyanka Srivastava & Anr. Vs. State
of UP & Ors2015 (96) SCC 287
Shivaji Vithalrao BhikaneVs.Chandrasen
Jagdevrao Deshmukh2008CriLJ3761
Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and
Anr.AIR2006SC705
Srinivas Gundluri and
Ors.Vs.SEPCO(2010)8SCC206
Upkar SinghVs.Ved Prakash and
Ors.AIR2004SC4320
Madhubala Vs. Sureshkumar
AIR1997SC3104
Anju ChaudharyVs.State of U.P. and
Anr.2013CriLJ776
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Cognizance means
not mere applying mind but for the purpose
of proceeding under S.200 and following
privisions
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 200 Magistrate has
discretion to reject the prayer and direct for
verification etc.
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 202 No arrest in
investigation of S.202
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 397 Accused shall be
impleaded in a revision against order
refusing S.156
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and 398 Interference in
revision should be in exceptional cases
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.7 P.C. Act
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.195 and S.341
Magistrate can order S.156(3) and after
investigation he can file complaint
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) and S.397 Direction by
sessions judge for sending signature to the
expert set aside
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) application can be treated as
complaint
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Application should be
supported by affidavit
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Before the order
complainant cannot be asked to call experto
to prove forgery
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Complainant should not be
examined before order under this section
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Difference of s.156(3) and
202 Cr.P.C. Mere direction to file charge
sheet not illegal
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Direction to register counter
FIR is valid
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Format of order
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate can treat an
application as a complaint In more than one
FIRs sameness test has to be applied
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
CBI Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct
State Of Gujarat MANU-GJ-0573-2001
Central Bureau of Investigation through Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot direct the
S.P., Jaipurvs.State of Rajasthan & CBI investigation
Anr.AIR2001SC668
K. SelvarajVs.The Superintendent of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate cannot order
Police and The Inspector of Police investigation by the CBI
Sachin Raosaheb Jadhav Vs State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion
Maharashtra Justice Nalawade not to refer to police and to inquire himself
into the application
Sukhwasi son of Hulasi Vs. State of Uttar Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Magistrate has discretion to
Pradesh 2008 Cri.L.J.472 send or not to send for investigation
Nilesh Daulatrao LakhaniVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No cognizance on police
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757 report after first directing for inquiry
R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC Cr.P.C. S.156(3) No order to CBI by
1117 Magistrate
Blue Dart Express Ltd.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order after verification was
Maharashtra2011(2)Crimes46 set aside and directed to proceed
Yogiraj Vasantrao SurveVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order can be challenged in
Maharashtra2013ALLMR(Cri)2059 Revision
R.R. Chari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Order does not amount to
AIR 1951 SC 207 taking cognizance 3 Judges Bench
Basanthi Sarkar and Ors.Vs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order in S.193 IPC offence
Bengal and Ors.MANU-WB-0218-2010 upheld by Kolkata HC
General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) order is not taking
Anr.AIR2012SC1890 cognizance
Shivaji Vithalrao Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Orders interference by
BhikaneVs.Chandrasen2008CriLJ3761 superior Courts normally be in very
exceptional circumstances
Ajit Ramrao Thete and others Vs. the State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Original Complaint and
of Maharashtra and another Bombay (DB) order should be retained in Court
Mohd. YousufVs.Smt. Afaq Jahan and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Petition's Format and
Anr.2006(1)KLJ380 nomenclature is not material It can be treated
as complaint
Samaj Parivartan Samudaya and Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police investigation may
Ors.Vs.State of Karnataka and start with registration of FIR while in other
Ors.AIR2012SC2326 cases (CBI, etc.), an inquiry may lead to
registration of an FIR
Laxminarayan Vishwanath AryaThe State Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Police need not seek
of Maharashtra through Senior Inspector of permission of Magistrate to arrest accused
Police and Ors.Vs.2008CriLJ1
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam
Sundaram Promoters (P) L and
Anr.(2009)2SCC363
Karnataka HC Sri. B.V. Acharya, Vs.Sri.
N. Venkateshaiah
Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai Butani, Vs.The
State of Maharashtra 2010 Cri.L.J. 2723
Pinni Co-op Housing Society and others
Maruti Mathu Gaikwad and others Bom
DB dd on 02.07.2013CRAPPLN463510
Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and
Ors.AIR2008SC907
Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat and
Ors.(2008)5SCC668
Rasiklal Dalpatram ThakkarVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2010SC715
Mr. Panchabhai Popotbhai ButaniVs.The
State of Maharashtra2010CriLJ2723
(2009) 6 SCC 576
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Vigilance
and Anti-Corruption, Tiruchirapalli, Tamil
Nadu vs. V. Jayapaul (22.03.2004 -
SC)(2004)5SCC223
The State of Uttar PradeshVs.Bhagwant
Kishore JoshiAIR1964SC221
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and
Ors.AIR1970SC786
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and
Ors.AIR1970SC786
S.N. SharmaVs.Bipen Kumar Tiwari and
Ors.AIR1970SC786
Ashok DebbarmaVs.State of
Tripura(2014)4SCC747
State of N.C.T. of
DelhiVs.Mukesh(2013)2SCC58
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Refusing direction for
investigation and direction for verification
and statements is taking cognizance
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Sanction needed for even
order under section
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) Simplicitor application
without FIR is tenable
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) This section cannot be
resorted to after direction to put up for
verification
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) When can Magistrate
Monitor investigation
Cr.P.C. S.156(3) While passing the order the
Magistrate has to apply mind
Cr.P.C. S.156(5) and 181(4) Jurisdiction to
be of the JMFC and not of the PSO
Cr.P.C. S.156(6) Application without prior
F.I.R. tenable
Cr.P.C. S.156(6) No inherent power to recall
order
Cr.P.C. S.157 No statutory bar to the
informant-police officer for taking up the
investigation
Cr.P.C. S.157 and PC Act Investigation can
be started on information or otherwise means
without FIR
Cr.P.C. S.159 does not enable Magistrate to
stop investigation
Cr.P.C. S.159 Gives limited power to
Magistrate to direct investigate proceed
himself but no power to stop investigation
Cr.P.C. S.159 Meant to give Magistrate the
power of directing investigation where the
police decide not to investigate the case
under the proviso to Section 157(1)
Cr.P.C. S.161 and 154 Omission to name
accused when he was part of group is not
fatal
Cr.P.C. S.161 and 162 and Evi Act S.145
Statement on TV channel subsequent to
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Mahesh Janardhan GonnadeVs.State of
Maharashtra(2008)13SCC271
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak
DebbarmaVs.State of Tripura
(2014)4SCC747
State of GujaratVs.Kathi Ramku
Aligbhai1986CriLJ239
State of U.P.Vs.M.K.
AnthonyAIR1985SC48.
AnthonyAIR1985SC48
Nirpal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of
HaryanaAIR1977SC1066
Gujarat High Court Full Bench Nathu
ManchhuVs.The State of
Gujarat1978CriLJ448
SureshVs.The State of Maharashtra (DB)
Decided On_ 31.10.2014
Md. Ankoos and Ors.Vs.The Public
Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
AIR2010SC566
Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of
Punjab(2012)11SCC205
State of Kerala Vs.Babu &
OrsAIR1999SC2161
Mr. Prakash VernekarVs.State of
Goa2007CriLJ4649
Mr. Prakash Vernekar Vs. State of Goa
2007 Cri.L.J. 4649
Pakala Narayana
SwamiVs.EmperorAIR1939PC47
Khatri and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar and
Ors.AIR1981SC1068
charge sheet is not covered Bipin Panchal
distinguished
Cr.P.C. S.161 and 164 Testimony of I.O. and
Spl Judl. Magi. cannot be disbelieved and
discredited
Cr.P.C. S.161 Every omission is not
contradiction
Cr.P.C. S.161 Inadmissible portions in the
panchana should be marked by the APP and
excluded by the Juge and How to appreciate
witnesses
Cr.P.C. S.161 Signature of witness does not
render evidence inadmissible
Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement of witness need not
be there in inquest panchanama
Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement reading over to
witness does not make his evidence
inadmissible
Cr.P.C. S.161 Statement should not be read
over to the witness by the police
Cr.P.C. S.161(3) Statement cannot be used
Cr.P.C. S.161_ In view of exception of
S.162(2) to S.161, statement of accused
under S.27 Evi Act need not be signed by
accused.
Cr.P.C. S.162 and 161 and 91 Magistrate can
call case diary of another case
Cr.P.C. S.162 and 452 and S.27 not barred
for deciding custody of muddemal
Cr.P.C. S.162 and S.27 Statement is not
barred for deciding custody of muddemal
Cr.P.C. S.162 Any confession made to a
police officer in course of investigation
whether a discovery is made or not is
excluded
Cr.P.C. S.162 Bar is not applicable in civil or
other proceeding
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Tahsildar Singh and Anr.Vs.The State of
Uttar PradeshAIR1959SC1012
Ramkishan Mithanlal SharmaVs.The State
of BombayAIR1955SC104
George & Ors vs State Of Kerala (1998) 4
SCC 605
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere
PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna
2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98
(2014(3)BomCR(Cri)98)
AIR1981SC1165
The State of MaharashtraVs.Prakash
Dhawal Khairnar1997BomCR(Cri)367
Dhananjaya Reddy etc.vs.State of
KarnatakaAIR2001SC1512
Abdul Razak ShaikhVs.State of
Maharashtra1987MhLJ863
Abdul_Razak_Shaikh_vs_State_Of_Mahar
ashtra_on_7_August,_1987
State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere
PoliceVs.Shivanna @ Tarkari
Shivanna2014ALLMR(Cri)4484(2014)8S
CC913
State Of Maharashtra vs Sharad B.
Sarda1983 (1) BomCR 578
Bom. HC Abdul Wahid Vs State Of
Maharashtra on 27 August 1991
Asgar Yusuf Mukadam and Ors.Vs.State of
Maharashtra and The Superintendent of
Prison2004CriLJ4312
Kum. Shraddha Meghshyam Velhal Vs
State of Maharashtra
State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494
Cr.P.C. S.162 Contradictions an omissions
Cr.P.C. S.162 covers statements to police
during TIP
Cr.P.C. S.162 Statement of I.O. in the
inquest what he saw is admissible
Cr.P.C. S.164 and IPC S.376 Directions to
Police and Magistrates
Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.30 Evi Act Recording
confession by other than jurisdiction
Magistrate upheld
Cr.P.C. S.164 and S.80 Evidence Act SC
says Magistrate need not be examined Madi
Ganga
Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession
Cr.P.C. S.164 Confession without signature
of accused inadmissible
Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused is
mandatory Bom. DB
Cr.P.C. S.164 Signature of accused on
confession Mandatory
Cr.P.C. S.164 statement of victim girl should
not be disclosed to any person till final report
Cr.P.C. S.167 60th or 90th day though
holiday cannot be excluded
Cr.P.C. S.167 After charge sheet bail under
section 436 or 437 only
Cr.P.C. S.167 Allowing Home Food is in
disreation of Magistrate
Cr.P.C. S.167 and 4 and POCSO Act JFCM
has no jurisdiction to remand take
cognizance and commit under PCSO Act
Cr.P.C. S.167 and 309 If accused was not
arrested till taking cognizance his remand
can be granted
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
In Re_ Jakir Khan @ JakerMANU-WB- Cr.P.C. S.167 and 437 Transit Remand
0253-2012 granted by rejecting bail
Tamizharasi and another Vs.Assistant Cr.P.C. S.167 and NDPS Act
Director, Narcotic Control
Bureau1996CriLJ208
Bom HC Cr.P.C. S.167 and S.36 of NDPS Act
Daji_Govind_Kamble_vs_State_Of_Mahar Magistrate remanded for more than 15 days
ashtra
Bom. HC B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of Cr.P.C. S.167 bail in serious offences NDPS
... vs Leidomann Heinrich And Another on can be cancelled
20 November, 1990
CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni Cr.P.C. S.167
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing Cr.P.C. S.167 For S.304B of IPC 90 days SC
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 Rajeev Chowdhary case referred
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.167 for TADA offences
Maharashtra on 12 July, 1994
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir Cr.P.C. S.167 Free legal aid should be
KasabVs.State of provided from the stage of remand
MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.167 Free Legal aid to be given at
AIR1981SC928 remand stage
G.K._Moopanar,_M.L.A._And_Others_vs Cr.P.C. S.167
_State_Of_Tamil_Nadu_on_16_March,_19
90
Prasad V.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 in POCSO Act offence
KeralaILR2013(2)Kerala1010 Magistrate can entertain first remand
Arnesh KumarVs.State of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.167 In S.498A IPC the Magistrate
AIR2014SC2756. authorising detention without recording
reasons is liable for departmental action
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... Cr.P.C. S.167 Limitation is 60 days for 10
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20 years imprisonment
06
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate and Judges shall
SCC (1) 627 inform accused about free legal aid
Harihar Chaitanya vs State Of U.P.1990 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate can differ with the
CriLJ 2082 I.O.
Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben Vs. Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate has to look into
State of Gujarat and ors., AIR 2013 SC 313 facts before granting remand
Khatri And Others vs State Of Bihar 1981 Cr.P.C. S.167 Magistrate is under obligation
SCC (1) 627 to inform availability of free legal aid Free
Legal aid
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167
Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563
StateVs. Santokh SinghAIR43 1956 Cr.P.C. S.167 No police custody of
Madhya Pradesh 13 imprisoned accused
CBI vs. Anupam Kulkarni (1992)3SCC141 Cr.P.C. S.167 PCR should be within the first
Fifteen days only and that period cannot be
extended under any circumstances
Rajeev Chowdhary case referred Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 60 days for S.395
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... and 366 IPC Bom
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20
06
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing Cr.P.C. S.167 Period is 90 days for S.304B
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006 IPC
Devender Kumar Vs. State of Haryana Cr.P.C. S.167 Police custody can be in the
2010CriLJ3849 first 15 days only. Cancellation of bail set
aside
NarainVs.Superintendent, Central Jail, Cr.P.C. S.167 Remand in absence of accused
New DelhiAIR1971SC178 who is not produced from jail is not illegal
Raj
Mr. Uday Mohanlal AcharyaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 Right to bail is defeated if not
Maharashtra2001CriLJ4563 availed already
AIR 1986 Raj 58 (FB) Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 CJM has district
jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C.
Cr.P.C. S.167 S.309 Rajastan FB CJM has
district jurisdiction No bail than Cr.P.C
Arnesh KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167 Supreme Court directions
BiharAIR2014SC2756 regarding arrested accused
State of WB Vs. Dinesh Dalmia AIR 2007 Cr.P.C. S.167 Surrender is different from
SC 1801 production by police
State of Maharashtra and Ors.Vs.Saeed Cr.P.C. S.167 Transfer of Under prisoners to
Sohail Sheikh etc.AIR2013SC168 other jails is subject to Judicial order
Iqbal Kaur Kwatra vs The Director General Cr.P.C. S.167 Transit Remand
Of Police1996 (2) ALT 138 AP High
Court
Rajeev_Chaudhary_vs_State_(N.C.T.)_Of_ Cr.P.C. S.167(2(
Delhi_on_4_May,_2001
Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Rathin Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Absconding accused
Dandapat and Ors.2015(9)SCALE120 arrested after charge sheet can be remanded
to PCR
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR1993SC1
Sajid Basir ShaikhVs.State of
Maharashtra2005(3)MhLj860
Bashir And Others vs State Of
HaryanaBashir and Ors.Vs.State of
HaryanaAIR1978SC55
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector of
CustomsVs.Mohmed Azan Khan and
others 1990MhLJ582
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Thamisharasi and
Ors.(1995)4SCC190
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Nirala
YadavAIR2014SC3036
B.S. Rawat, Asstt. Collector Of ... vs
Leidomann Heinrich And Another 1991
CriLJ 552
AnilkumarVs.State of
Maharashtra1990CriLJ2058
Bashir_And_Others_vs_State_Of_Haryana
_on_3_October,_1977
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs
Anupam J. Kulkarni AIR1992SC1768
Chaganti Satyanarayana and Ors.Vs.State
of Andhra PradeshAIR1986SC2130
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and
Anr.Vs.State of
Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Accused released on default
ground cannot be arrested on only count of
filing of charge sheet
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) After charge sheet Right of
accused is defeated if he fails to exercise
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and 437 Mere filing of
charge sheet not sufficient to cancel bail
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and NDPS Act Limit of 15
days is for police custody and not for other
agency custody
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and S.4(2)_ Magistrate has
jurisdiction to remand in Customs Act case
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) and Unlawful Activities Act
S.43D Magistrate has to grant default bail
after the 90 days under Unlawful Activities
Act
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) appicable to accused
produced by other than police
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) applicable to NDPS Act
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Application filed for default
bail cannot be rejected due to filing of charge
sheet before decision of bail application
Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cancelled by sessions
court under section 439(2) in NDPS Case
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Bail cannot be cancelled on
mere count of filing charge sheet leter on
Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Date of production before
magistrate is starting point
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Entry in diary in not a sine
quo non
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) For S.306 IPC period for
filing chargesheet against UTP is 60 days
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi
Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439
Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar
Barkaji Matre and others S.167
CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Jeewan Kumar Raut and Anr.Vs.Central
Bureau of InvestigationAIR2009SC2763
Satyajit Ballulbhai Desai and Ors.Vs.State
of GujaratI(2015)CCR321(SC)
Sayed Mohd. Ahmed KazmiVs.State,
GNCTD and Ors.AIR2012SC660
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors. Vs.Home
Secretary, State of Bihar,
PatnaAIR1979SC1369
Aslam Babalal DesaiVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR1993SC1
Sajid Basir Shaikh vs SOM2005 (3) MhLJ
860
Umashanker_And_Ors._vs_State_Of_Mad
hya_Pradesh
Nijamuddin Mohammad Bashir Khan and
Anr.Vs.State of
Maharashtra2006CriLJ4266
Shakil Khan Yasin KhanVs.The State of
Maharashtra MANU-MH-0047-2014
Rajeev Chaudharyvs.State (N.C.T.) of
DelhiAIR2001SC2369
Bhupinder_Singh_&_Ors_vs_Jarnail_Sing
h_&_Anr_on_13_July,_2006
Bhulabai wdo Barkaji MatreVs.Shankar
Barkaji Matre and others S.167
CRPC1999(3) Mh.L.J. 227
Rajeev Chaudhary case A Comment
Directorate of EnforcementVs.Deepak
Mahajan and anotherAIR1994SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) From charge sheet till
committal it is inquiry
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) If charge sheet is not filed
in time explanation of IO to be called
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) in Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is applicable to accused
arrested under FERA Act
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) is not applicable to offences
under TOHO Act as it provides for complaint
only
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate has to judicially
scrutinise circumstances and if satisfied order
police custody
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate kept application
undecided till charge sheet Held accused is
entitled for bail
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Magistrate shall inform the
accused about the right to free legal aid and
to provide it
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Merits not be considered
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Not indefeasible
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Pending bail application
allowed
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306
IPC
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.306
IPC
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 60 days for S.386
IPC as punishment does not exceed 10 years
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Period is 90 days for
S.304B IPC
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Procedure to be followed by
Magistrate
Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Remand under FERA Act
permissible
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Palanisamy @ PalaniVs.State rep. by Cr.P.C. S.167(2) Sanction is not part of
Inspector of Police2003-1-LW(Crl)239 investigation Magistrate cannot refuse charge
sheet
Uday Mohanlal Acharyavs.State of Cr.P.C. S.167(2)
Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC1 910
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand JainVs.State Cr.P.C. S.167(2) When Charge sheet is filed
of Maharashtra and Anr.(2013)3SCC77 and Sanction awaited Hence no bail
Nijamuddin_Mohammad_Bashir_Khan_... Cr.P.C. S.167(2)(a)(ii) 60 days for 10 years
_vs_State_Of_Maharashtra_on_7_July,_20 offence
06
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home Cr.P.C. S.167(5) Two options
Secretary, State of Bihar,
PatnaAIR1979SC1377
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh Cr.P.C. S.169 and 173 Magistrate cannot
MishraAIR1968SC117 direct police to file charge sheet
Rameshbhai Jagjivan Vora Authorised Cr.P.C. S.169 application before magistrate
Signatory of Gaekwad Vs.State of Gujarat is not tenable GUJARAT HIGH COURT
and Ors.2010GLH(2)588
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate cannot direct police
MishraAIR1968SC117 to file charge sheet
Mohd. Rafique Abdul Rahman Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.169 Magistrate does not come in
Maharashtra 2013 Bom.C.R.(Cri) 251 picture under this section
MarotiVs.The State of Maharashtra and Cr.P.C. S.169 Mere report without final
Ors.2015(4)BomCR(Cri)504 report under S.173 is not tenable
Mohd. RafiqueVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.169 report before Magistration is
Maharashtra2013BomCR(Cri)251 not tenable
MarotiVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.169 Report is report of action taken
MaharashtraDecided On_ 04.02.2015 by IO and not final report
Kedar Narayan Parida & Ors vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.169 Report received regarding
Orissa & Anr (2009)9SCC538 some accused. Court can direct investigation
under S.156(3)
The State of BiharVs.Chandra Bhushan Cr.P.C. S.173 and 2(d) A plaint by sub-
Singh & Ors.AIR2001SC429 inspector of RPF is a complaint and not a
charge sheet
StateVs.Shankar Bhaurao Cr.P.C. S.173 and Rule 203 of the Bombay
KhirodeAIR1959Bom437 Police Manual, Volume III Summaries A B
and C explained
Union Public Service Commission Vs.S. Cr.P.C. S.173 Court was not justified in
Papaiah and othersAIR1997SC3876 accepting final report without notice to the
informant
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of Cr.P.C. S.173 Electronic charge sheet -SC
Narcotics(2013)2SCC590 directed to supply copy of charge sheet in
electronic form additionally
Popular MuthiahVs.State represented by Cr.P.C. S.173 Options available to
Inspector of Police2006(2)ACR2157(SC) Magistrate
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Vinay TyagiVs.Irshad Ali (2013)5SCC762
Abhinandan Jha and Ors.Vs.Dinesh
MishraAIR1968SC117
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of
Narcotics(2013)2SCC590
Bandi KotayyaVs.State (S.H.O.
Nandigama) and Ors.AIR1966AP377
Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and
Anr.(2009)6SCC661
Jakia Nasim Ahesan & Anr. vs State Of
Gujarat AIR 2012 SC 243
Rama ChaudharyVs.State of
BiharAIR2009SC2308
Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel and ors. Vs.
State of Gujarat (2009)6SCC332
State through C.B.I. Vs.Dawood Ibrahim
Kaskar and othersAIR1997SC2494
Hemant Dhasmane vs.Central Bureau of
Investigation and anr.AIR2001SC2721
Hasanbhai Valibhai QureshiVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.AIR2004SC2078
Ram Lal NarangVs.State (Delhi
Administration)AIR1979SC1791
Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha
Venkata Vishwandadha Maharaj Vs.State
of Andhra Pradesh & OrsAIR1999SC2332
Chandra BabuVsState and
Ors.(2015)8SCC774
Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share
Shoppe(2010)12SCC485
State of Andhra PradeshVs.Cheemalapati
Ganeswara Rao and Anr.AIR1963SC1850
State of Maharashtra Vs.Anjanabai
1997CriLJ2309
Cr.P.C. S.173 Reinvestigation and further
investigation is explained in
Cr.P.C. S.173 Report may be one under
section 169 or 170 Magistrate cannot direct
to file charge sheet
Cr.P.C. S.173 SC directed to supply copy of
charge sheet in electronic form additionally
Cr.P.C. S.173 When cognizance is said to be
taken
Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(I) Different situations
before Magistrate are discussed
Cr.P.C. S.173(2)(i) Magistrate to issue
Notice to the informant if not taking
cognizance
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) (2 Judges Bench held)
Magistrates prior permission is not required
for further investigation-Reinvestigation is
distinct
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused directed to appear
for interrogation without being arrested
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Accused subsequently
arrested Magistrate has dicretion to try
together or separately
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) can be triggered by
Magistrate
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Permits further
investigation, and even dehors any direction
from the Court as such
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police has power to further
investigate but to inform and seek formal
permission of Magistrate
Cr.P.C. S.173(8) Police should inform the
Magistrate and seek formal permission
Cr.P.C. S.173(8)_ Magistrate has jurisdiction
to direct further investigation
Cr.P.C. S.177 178 and 181 Objection of
jurisdiction to be raised before summoning
Court
Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)
Court can try offences committed in same
course of transaction in other jurisdiction
Cr.P.C. S.177 does not govern S.223(d)
Court can try offences committed in same
course of transaction in other jurisdiction
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors.Vs.Inspector of
Police, Chennai and Anr.AIR2004SC4286
Mahender GoyalVs.Messers Kadamba
International2014CriLJ1645
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N.
Ananthapadmanabhiah etc.1974--
LW(Crl)82 Three judges
Mrs. Minguelin LoboVs.Smt. Archana
Sawant MANU-MH-1302-2004
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs.Rajesh
Agarwal and othersAIR1999SC3499
Trisuns Chemical Industry Vs. Rajesh
Agarwal and others AIR1999SC3499
Musaraf Hossain KhanVs.Bhageeratha
Engg. Ltd. and Ors.AIR2006SC1288
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
and Ors.2012ACR1859
Kishore Kumar Gyanchandani vs G.D.
Mehrotra And Anr. AIR 2002 SC 483
Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and
Anr.(2010)9SCC479
SWIL Ltd. vs. State of Delhi
(2001)6SCC670
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39
SITA case Bombay (DB) State vs
Mainabai AIR 1962 Bom 202
State vs MainabaiAIR 1962 Bom 202
Rakesh & anr Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
2014 STPL(Web) 524 SC
Cr.P.C. S.177 Illtreatment took at husbands
place No part of offence at her parents place
Hence complaint returned
Cr.P.C. S.177 to 186 Complaint returning
procedure laid down by Madras High Court
in
Cr.P.C. S.179 Old Act A Magistrate's
jurisdiction is limited to his territorial
jurisdiction
Cr.P.C. S.187 If the offence took beyond
jurisdiction, the Magistrate should summon
accused and then transfer
Cr.P.C. S.187 Power of any Magistrate of the
First Class to take cognizance of the offence
is not impaired by territorial restrictions
Cr.P.C. S.187 power to take cognizance of
the offence is not impaired by territorial
restrictions
Cr.P.C. S.188 Convenience of the Victim is
important
Cr.P.C. S.189A IPC Sec.494 cognizable with
S. 498A on police report cognizable
Cr.P.C. S.190 Acceptance of final report
does not debar the Magistrate from taking
cognizance on the basis of the materials
produced in a complaint proceeding.
Cr.P.C. S.190 and 319 Magistrate can take
cognizance against the accused named in FIR
but omitted in the charge sheet
Cr.P.C. S.190 At the stage of taking
cognizance there is no question of S.319
Messers
Cr.P.C. S.190 Cognizance taking means
Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to
vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice
Cr.P.C. S.190 Faulty Investiation not to
vitiate the trial unless there was prejudice
Cr.P.C. S.190 In Sessions cases Magistrate
has to see only sufficient ground for
proceeding and not required to weigh
evidence meticulously SC Nupur
TalwarCentral Bureau of Investigation and
Anr
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
H.S. BainsVs.State (Union Territory of Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate accepted B final
Chandigarh)(1980)4SCC631 report but proceded under Ss.200 and 202
and took cognizance-Upheld in
Vijay Kant Thakur and Anr.Vs.Stale of Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can differ with PSO
Bihar and Anr.2010CriLJ4190 on police report and issue process for
different sections
Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take
ors.AIR2001SC3524 cognizance against other accused on
subsequent date also
Chittaranjan MirdhaVs.Dulal Ghosh and Cr.P.C. S.190 Magistrate can take
Anr.(2009)6SCC661 cognizance aginst other than charge sheeted
India_Carat_Pvt._Ltd_vs_State_Of_Karnat Cr.P.C. S.190 Notice to informant is
aka_&_Anr_on_15_February,_1989 necessary if cognizance is not taken
Gopal Das Sindhi and Ors.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.190 Options to Magistrate
Assam and Anr.1961CriLJ39(3JJs)
M.C. MehtaVs.Union of India (UOI) and Cr.P.C. S.190 Passing order of S.156(3) or
Ors.(2007)1SCC110 Search Warrant is not taking Cognizance
H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.190 Taj corridor case
State of Delhi AIR 1955 SC 196
Rajinder Prasad vs. Bashir and ors. AIR Cr.P.C. S.190 Trial is not vitiated if the
2001 SC 3524 cognizance is valid
India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can proceed
and Anr.AIR1989SC885 against accused not charge sheeted
India Carat Pvt. Ltd.Vs.State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Magistrate can take
and Anr.AIR1989SC885 cognizance from the material of final report
even if police say no offence madeout
Rattiram and Ors.Vs.State of M.P. through Cr.P.C. S.190(1)(b) Options to Magistrate He
Inspector of PoliceAIR2012SC1485 can take cognizance from material of final
report even if police say no offence madeout
Ratiram and others Vs State of M.P Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC and ST Act Trial is not
vitiated on mere count that Sessions Court
directly accepted the charge sheet
1999CriLJ4173 Cr.P.C. S.193 and SC ST POA Act Though
case was not committed Cognizance by
Session Trial was not viated
Kishun Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.193 Charge-sheet to be returned to
Bihar(1993)2SCC16 police for presenting before JMFC for
committal in SC and ST POA Act Referring
Officer
Daulat RamVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.193 On committal Sessions Court
PunjabAIR1962SC1206 gets jurisdiction to take cognizance against
new accused on same material
M. Narayandas vs State Of Karnataka And Cr.P.C. S.195 and IPC s.182 it is incumbent
Ors.,2004 Cri.L.J. 822 that a complaint in writing should be made
by the public servant concerned for only
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
KAMLAPATI TRIVEDI Vs.
RESPONDENT_ STATE OF WEST
BENGAL1979 AIR 777
In Re_ Vishwanath M. Hegde
AIR1951Bom289
Mahesh Chand SharmaVs.State of U.P. and
Ors.(2009)15SCC519
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul
Syed Muzaffaruddin Khan Mohd. vs
Mohd.Abdul Qadir Mohd. Abdul
M.L. SethiVs.R.P. Kapur and
Anr.AIR1967SC528
Rama Rao and Anr.Vs.Narayan and
Anr.AIR1969SC724
State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal
PaltaAIR1969SC355
Ajaib Singh and Anr. vs. Joginder Singh
and Anr. AIR1968SC1422
State of PunjabVs.Brij Lal
PaltaAIR1969SC355
Nandkishor Laxminarayan Mundhada And
Ors 2008CriLJ990
Iqbal Singh Marwah and
Anr.Vs.Meenakshi Marwah and
Anr.AIR2005SC2119
Abdul Rehman and Ors. vs. K.M. Anees-
ul-Haq 2012CriLJ1060
Kamlapati TrivediVs.State of West
BengalAIR1979SC777
Chartered Accountants of IndiaVs.Vimal
Kumar Surana and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC(Cri)
442
M.S. SheriffVs.The State of Madras and
Ors.AIR1954SC397
Durgacharan Naik and Ors.Vs.State of
OrissaAIR1966SC1775
Cr.P.C. S.195 and S.340 Court can file
complaint on the basis of FIR and
investigation provided 340 is followed
Cr.P.C. S.195 Attracted for S.211 IPC Held
SC 2_1 in
Cr.P.C. S.195 Complaint for S.500 IPC
maintenable though the act falls under S.211
IPC also
Cr.P.C. S.195 No bar to complaint of false
mutation entry outside court
Cr.P.C. S.195 no bar to S.156
Cr.P.C. S.195 Not a bar to order of S.156(3)
as the bar comes after investigation Then
Court can file complaint
Cr.P.C. S.195 not bar for S.211 IPC
Cr.P.C. S.195 Registrar Co-op societies is
not a Court
Cr.P.C. S.195
Cr.P.C. S.195 Successor-in-office a
Magistrate can file a complant. Limitation
under police Act for offence under police Act
only
Cr.P.C. S.195 There can be no objection to
the continuance of proceedings relating to
offences for other than those covered by
Sections 182, 211 and 193 IPC
Cr.P.C. S.195 Will forged prior to production
before court. No bar. Bom says
Cr.P.C. S.195(1) Bars unless the complaint is
by the Court
Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) attracted for S.211 IPC
Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b) Complaint by Court
required for S.211 offence on False police
report
Cr.P.C. S.195(1)(b)(ii) and 4 Case on police
report is tenable by excluding the offences
which can be taken cognizance on complaint
The Institute of
Cr.P.C. S.195(3) Criminal proceedings
should be given precedence and the civil
proceedings should be stayed
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao Cr.P.C. S.195Convicted under 353 acquitted
and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled under 186 of IPC
General Officer CommandingVs.CBI and Cr.P.C. S.197 (Overruled) For want of
Anr.AIR2012SC1890 sanction accused was acquitted instead of
discharge
SC State of Madhya PradeshSheetla Sahai Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19 Sanction is
and Ors.(2009)8SCC617 required for taking cognizance and not for
taking charge sheet
State of Kerala Vs.V. Padmnabhan Cr.P.C. S.197 and P.C. Act S.19ection 197
Nair(1999)5SCC690 requires sanction both for those who were or
are public servants
Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana AIR Cr.P.C. S.197 Criminal Breach of trust is not
1987 SC 735 part of duty
State of Maharashtra Vs.Dr. B.K. Subbarao Cr.P.C. S.197 Due to want of valid sanction
and another1993CriLJ2984 Overruled order will not operate as acquittal
State of U.P.Vs.Paras Nath Cr.P.C. S.197 For want of sanction accused
Singh2009CriLJ3069 was aquitted instead of discharge
State of Orissa through Cr.P.C. S.197 Forgery etc are not part of duty
and hence want of sanction is no bar
Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Cr.P.C. S.197 is and was
Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Cr.P.C. S.197 Necessit of sanction can be
JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and considered after evidence when it cannot be
Ors.AIR1998SC1524 decided without evidence
Mohd. Hadi RajaVs. State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.197 not applicable to public sector
Anr.AIR1998SC1945 undertaking employee
Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. vs State of Cr.P.C. S.197 Power under S.156(3) is
Punjab and Ors(2007)1SCC1 discretionary
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh & Cr.P.C. S.197 Real test is if the complained
Orsvs.Jammal Patel and acts were not done should it amount to
Ors.AIR2001SC2198 dereliction of duty then sanction is necessary
Matajog DobeyVs.H.C. Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction is required to
BhariAIR1956SC44 prosecute when the search party was
obstructed and there was just a scuffle
Kerala HC Cr.P.C. S.197 Sanction Test
Sankarankutty_Menon_And_Ors._vs_Dep
uty_Superintendent_Of_Police,_..._on_3_J
anuary,_1961
Suresh Kumar Bhikamchand Cr.P.C. S.197 Whether the accused was
JainVs.Pandey Ajay Bhushan and discharging public servant's duty or not can
Ors.AIR1998SC1524 be considered during the progress of the case
Kumar Raghvendra Singh and Cr.P.C. S.197 Words used are -is and was -
Ors.Vs.Ganesh Chandra Jew State of Orissa through
Ashwin Nanubhai Vyas Vs. State Of Cr.P.C. S.198 and S.495 of IPC complainant
Maharashtra & Anr, AIR 1967 SC 983 died mother continued complaint
S Cr.P.C. S.198 Cognizance of S.494 with
S.498A of IPC on charge sheet permissible
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
tate of Orisssa Vs.Sharat Chandra Sahu and
another
UshabenVs.Kishorbhai Chunilal Talpada
and Ors.2012ACR1859
Divine Retreat CentreVs.State of Kerala
and Ors.AIR2008SC1614
Rajesh Bhalchandra ChalkeVs.State of
Maharashtra and Emco Dynatorq Pvt.
Ltd.2011(1)MhLj244
Poonam Chand Jain 2005 SCC (Cri) 190
Devendra Kishanlal DagaliaVs.Dwarkesh
Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. and
Ors.AIR2014SC655
Vijay Dhanuka Etc.Vs.Najima Mamtaj
Etc2014CriLJ2295
Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and
Ors.AIR2010SC2261
2014_STPL(Web)_218_SC
Magistrate and Ors.AIR1998SC128
Rajeev SawhneyVs.State Bank of
Mauritius Ltd. and Ors.2011(6)MhLj401
Shivjee SinghVs.Nagendra Tiwary and
Ors.AIR2010SC2261
Adalat PrasadVs.Rooplal Jindal and
Ors.(2004)7SCC338
Kewal Krishan Lachman DasVs.Suraj
Bhan and Anr.AIR1980SC1780
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757
Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of
Maharashtra and Anr.2004CriLJ4609
Subramanium SethuramanVs.State of
Maharashtra and Anr. (2004)13SCC324
Krishna Kumar VariarVs.Share
Shoppe2010CriLJ3848
Nilesh Daulatrao Lakhani vs. State of
Maharashtra2014(4)BomCR(Cri)757
Cr.P.C. S.198- IPC Sec.494 cognizable with
S. 498A on police report cognizable
Cr.P.C. S.199 Where police took no action
inspite of information remedy lies in filing
complaint
Cr.P.C. S.200 in N.I. Act cases Affidavits are
allowed in lieu of verification
Cr.P.C. S.200 Second complaint on same
facts when tenable remanded to High Court
Cr.P.C. S.201 Complaint cannot be returned
after issuing summons
Cr.P.C. S.202 Amended Examining
witnesses is a compliance of postponement
Cr.P.C. S.202 In session triable offences it is
not mandatory but advisable to examine all
witnesses
Cr.P.C. S.202 Inquiry mandatory when
accused is from far away place
Cr.P.C. S.202 Magistrate is not a silent
spectator He may put questions to elicite
truth Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr.Vs.Special
Judicial
Cr.P.C. S.202 Once complaint was quashed
on the ground of similar complaint being
peding further complaint is not tenable
Cr.P.C. S.202 Shall does not mean
mandatory Not necessary to examine all
witnesses in inquiry
Cr.P.C. S.203 Magistrate has no jurisdiction
to recall the process
Cr.P.C. S.203 Sessions Trial case dismissed
by Magistrate an error within jurisdiction
Cr.P.C. S.204 (Check this ratio) On receiving
police report process need not be issued
Cr.P.C. S.204 Adalat Prasad case applicable
to Summons and Warrant cases
Cr.P.C. S.204 and NI Act S.138 Adalat
Prasad followed in
Cr.P.C. S.204 Challenge to jurisdiction shall
be made by application before trial court
Cr.P.C. S.204 Check this ratio On receiving
police report process need not be issued
Cr.P.C. S.204 Court can insist for process fee
in non cognizable offences
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
1Mt. Vithi and Anr. vs Tulsiram Maroti
and Crown 950CriLJ746
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.AIR2012SC1747
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422
AIR1997SC3750State of BiharVs.Kadra
Pahadiya and Others
R.R. ChariVs.State of
U.P.AIR1962SC1573
Raj Kishore PrasadVs.State of Bihar and
anotherAIR1996SC1931
Bhushan Kumar and Anr.Vs.State (NCT of
Delhi) and Anr.(2012)5SCC422
Chhotan Sao and Anr.Vs.State of
BiharAIR2014SC907
Raj Kishore Prasad Vs.State of Bihar and
anotherAIR1996SC1931
State of Uttar PradeshVs.Lakshmi
Brahman and Anr.AIR1983SC439
Chhotan Sao and anr Vs. State of Bihar
AIR 2014 SC 907
Pal @ Palla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
(2010)10SCC123
Delhi HC State vs Ram Kanwar
1984(1)Crimes1040
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 1965 SC 1248
C.B.I.Vs.Karimullah Osan Khan
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
1965 AIR 1248
Cr.P.C. S.204 Detailed reasons unneccary for
issuance process
Cr.P.C. S.204 order is not interlocutory
Magistrate cannot review
Cr.P.C. S.204 Summons is a process issued
by court calling to apper
Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance explained
Cr.P.C. S.204 Taking cognizance means
becoming aware of and to take notice of
judicially
Cr.P.C. S.206 Notification for Special
Summons
Cr.P.C. S.206 Use recommended by
Supreme Court
Cr.P.C. S.209 After committal it cannot be
said that the Magistrate has jurisdiction over
the case
Cr.P.C. S.209 Committal under the new
Code is not an enquiry strictly speaking
Cr.P.C. S.209 Form Committal Warrant
Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has a duty to secure
the Vicera Report etc before the committal
Cr.P.C. S.209 Magistrate has no power to
summon a new accused at the stage of
committal
Cr.P.C. S.209 Supplying copies under S.207
is judicial function and without its
compliance there can be no committal
Cr.P.C. S.209 Without obtaining the forensic
report committal by Magistrate is mechanical
and without applying mind
Cr.P.C. S.210 Clubbing of police case and
complaint case is not permissible when the
accused or the offences are not same
Cr.P.C. S.212(2) is an enabling provision
Cr.P.C. S.212, 219 and 220 are enabling
provisions for joinder of trials
Cr.P.C. S.216 Charge may be altered any
time
Cr.P.C. S.218 and 219 Charge IPC S.409
Consecutive sentence in separate trials
upheld
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Manoharlal Lohe Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh1981CriLJ1563
Chudaman Narayan Patil vs State Of
Maharashtra on 22 September, 1967
Birichh Bhuian and Ors.Vs.State of
BiharAIR1963SC1120
Messers Indian Sulphacid Industries
DELHI MANU-DE-2870-2011
Ranchhodlal vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
1965 AIR 1248
State vs Ram Kanwar 1984 (1) Crimes
1040 Delhi
Aklak Ahmed Fakruddin PatelVs.State of
Maharashtra2011CriLJ126
Manivannan And S. Krishnamoorthy vs
P.R. Adhikesavan MANU-TN-0178-2008
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union
of India and ors AIR2001SC3810
Nova Vision Electronics Pvt. Ltd. and
Anr.Vs.State and Anr.2011CriLJ868
Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001
CriLJ 3417
Praveen vs State Of Maharashtra 2001
CriLJ 3417
Nova Vision Electronics Pvt.Ltd and anr
Vs. State and anr MANU-DE-4089-2009
K. Prema S. Rao Vs.Yadla Srinivasa Rao
AIR2003SC11
Samadhan Baburao Khakare and
Ors.Vs.The State of Maharashtra and
Ors.1995(2)MhLj464
Ramesh Singh State Of Maharashtra 1993
CriLJ 2743
Lalu Prasad @ Lalu Prasad YadavVs.State
through C.B.IAIR2003SC3838
Banti @ GudduVs.State of Madhya
PradeshAIR2004SC261
Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Accused never
objected joint trial and hence consenting
party and hence conviction upheld
Cr.P.C. S.218 and S.409 IPC Ranchodlal
follwed in
Cr.P.C. S.218 Difference between
irregularity and illegality in joinder of
charges
Cr.P.C. S.219 and 220 are exception section
218 of Cr.P.C.
Cr.P.C. S.219 Charge IPC S.409 Consecutive
sentence in separate trials upheld
Cr.P.C. S.219 Separate charges and trials is
the normal rule
Cr.P.C. S.220 Clubbing of police case for
S.498A and 306 and complaint case for
S.302 and 304B against same accused has
been upheld
Cr.P.C. S.220 Complainant filed separate
cases of S.420 IPC and S.138 NI Act Held
separate trials were not improper
Cr.P.C. S.220 Each depositors case is
individual offence
Cr.P.C. S.220 For separate cheque separate
trial has been justified
Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction Kidnapping
from Nagpur Rape in Jabalpur Either Court
can try
Cr.P.C. S.220 Same transaction
Cr.P.C. S.220 Separate cheques seperate
trials
Cr.P.C. S.221 Convicted for S.306 along
with S.498A though charged with S.304B
and 498A
Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Major and the minor
offences must be cognate offences having
main ingredients in common.
Cr.P.C. S.222(2) Police Act S.124 conviction
upheld though the charge was under S.413 of
IPC
Cr.P.C. S.223 On the application of accused
the Magistrate may amalgamate cases. He
can read one case evidence in the other
Cr.P.C. S.226 and 231 APP can choose and
pick his witnesses
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Cr.P.C. S.226 Anticipatory bail in UP upheld
Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra by SC
Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Dinesh Tiwari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Cr.P.C. S.227 and 239 Material produced by
dd on_ 07.07.2014 MANU-SC-0587-2014 accused not to be considered
Union of India (UOI)Vs.Prafulla Kumar Cr.P.C. S.227 Charge of an offence not
Samal and Anr.AIR1979SC366 mentioned in charge sheet can be framed
State Of Karnataka vs Chetan Tayal Cr.P.C. S.227 Discharge Test
V. C. Shukla vs State Through C.B.I AIR Cr.P.C. S.227 Documents produced by
1980 SC AIR accused cannot be considered at the time of
charge
Niranjan Singh Karan Singh Vs. Jitendra Cr.P.C. S.227 Framing Charge is
Bhimraj Bijje, AIR 1990 SC 1962 Interlocutory order
Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Overruled Cr.P.C. S.227 Marshalling of evidence not
in State Of Orissa vs Debendra Nath Padhi required at the stage of Charge
A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Willie (William) SlaneyVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.227 Material of accused not to be
Madhya PradeshAIR1956SC116 considered
M. Joy Varghese Cr.P.C. S.227 Omission to frame charge of
s.34 IPC not fatal
Smt. Snehalata MondalVs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.227 Though Trial cannot consider
Bengal(2008)1CALLT297(HC) documents of accused High Court can
consider under S.482
State of BombayVs.Mohamadh Cr.P.C. S.229 Subsequent plea of guilty
KhanAIR1960Bom150 accepted
Rohtash KumarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.231 Additional witness for
Haryana(2013)14SCC434 prosecution can be allowed
Ram Deo Chauhanvs.State of Assam Cr.P.C. S.231 and Evi Act S.114 Prosecution
(2001)5SCC714 is not bound to examine all listed witnesses
Narpal Singh & Others vs State Of Cr.P.C. S.235(2) Accused upon conviction
Haryana AIR 1977 SC 1066 can be sent to jail until hearing on sentence
Modilal Kaluram Kachhara And Etc. vs Cr.P.C. S.235(2) To hear on sentence de
State Of Maharashtra 1988 CriLJ__1901__ novo trial not necessary
(Satish Mehra (1996) 9 SCC 766 Cr.P.C. S.239 and 240 Transfer application
Overruled)-State Of Orissa vs Debendra Rejected Complaint Against Judge
Nath Padhi A.I.R. 2005 SCC 369
Cr.P.C. S.239 Discharged from S.498A and
506
Kanti Bhadra Shah and Anr. Vs.The State Cr.P.C. S.239 Magistrate need not write
of West BengalAIR2000SC522 order for framing charge but has to write
order for discharge
M. Joy Varghese Vs The State ANU-TN- Cr.P.C. S.239 Under S.482 no bar to the
0365-2011 High Court to consider the documents
produced by accused
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Dattatraya Dagduji Borkute 1996 CriLJ987 Cr.P.C. S.242(2) and 254(2) and 87 If
warrant is not applied for, it is Court's
discretion to issue warrant to the absent
witness
ILR 1970(1) Del287 Cr.P.C. S.244 Accused has right to cross
examine in EBC
Sunil Mehta and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.244 Statements of S.202 are not
and Anr.2013(2)BomCR(Cri)335 EBC
1983 Mah.L.J.494 Cr.P.C. S.244 Witness in EBC not available
for cross after charge His evidence may be
considered
Cricket Association of Bengal and ors Vs. Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Complaint can be dismissed
State of West Bengal and ors. AIR 1971 before charge
SC 1971
Luis De Piedade Lobo Vs.Mahadev Cr.P.C. S.245(2) Opportunity to adduce EBC
Vishwanath Parulekar1984CriLJ513 should be given to the Complaint
Hansraj Harjiwan Bhate and Cr.P.C. S.246 Additional witnesses allowed
Ors.Vs.EmperorAIR1940Nag390 Absence of any provision on particular
matter does not mean that there is no such
power in criminal court
Gurmukh Singh and Ors. vs. The State of Cr.P.C. S.248(2) Conviction not bad for
Punjab (1972)4SCC805 failure to adopt procedure applicable to
complaint-warrant case
Sagunabai Lahanu Shende Vs.Patru Goma Cr.P.C. S.249 cannot be invoked after charge
Lengure and others1979MhLJ18
DB In Re_ Jamnabai Meghji Cr.P.C. S.249 Courts practice of posting case
AIR1934Bom130 for actual hearing and simple adjournment
discussed by
Narayandas Narayandas Gulabchand Cr.P.C. S.249 Magistrate is not empowered
Agrawal v. Rakesh Kumar Nem Kumar to restore a complaint
Porwal 1996 (2) Mh.L.J. 463
Dagdu Govindshet WaniVs.Punja Vedu Cr.P.C. S.250 and 350 Old Act For these
WaniAIR1937Bom55 sections trial commences in warrant case
even before charge
IND Synergy Ltd.Vs.Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Cr.P.C. S.251 Adalat Prasad case would not
Ltd.III(2014)BC433(Del) come in way for objection to jurisdiction
Jhantu DasVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.251 If the admitted facts do not
Tripura(2007)2GLR443 amount to offence accused can not be
convicted
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan Cr.P.C. S.252 Plead guilty for lessor offences
and Ors 2013 (12) SCALE 275 set aside as informant had no opportunity to
apply for adding charges or accused
Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.252 Rubber stamp used for
Maharashtra and others dd on 10.01.2013 recording plea of accused Court upheld the
order
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.255 Magistrate should issue
Kamble1988MhLJ49 summons on request of the prosecution, but
can refuse to adjourn if no efforts taken to
serve the summons
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and Prohibition Act
Gujarat(1984)2GLR964 S.66(1)(b) Hearing on sentence gives
accused to show special reason for less than
minimum punishment
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.255(2) and S.66(1)(b) Magistrate
MANU-GJ-0206-1984 has to hear the accused on sentence
In Re_ Wasudeo Narayan Phadnis Cr.P.C. S.256 (Do not follow this authority)
AIR1950Bom10 (DB) Magistrate can restore the complaint and
continue from the last stage
Narayandas Gulabchand Agrawal 1996-2- Cr.P.C. S.256 and 249 Bombay says
MhLj463 Magistrate has no jurisdiction to restore a
dismissed complaint
Om Gayatri and company Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.256 Bombay No revision lies
Maharashtra 2006 Cr.L.J.601 against order under section
Associated Cement Co. Ltd vs Keshvanand Cr.P.C. S.256 Court should not insist for
AIR1998SC596 presence of particular person should not
dismiss if evidence already recorded the
Harishchandra @ Sunil Rajaram Rasker Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate cannot restore
Vs.Kantilal Virchand Vora & complaint
another1998CriLJ3754
Madankumar Dharamchand Jain and Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate has no power to
Anr.Vs.State of Maharashtra and recall the dismissal order
Anr.1983(1)BomCR416
Maj. Genl. A.S. Gauraya and Anr.Vs.S.N. Cr.P.C. S.256 Magistrate not empowered to
Thakur and Anr.AIR1986SC1440 restore dismissed complaint
S. Rama KrishnaVs.S. Rami Cr.P.C. S.256(1) Magistrate has to dismiss
ReddyAIR2008SC2066 complaint unless decided to adjourn for some
cause
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu Cr.P.C. S.258 After summons only
Kamble1988MhLJ49 Magistrate can close case
Pramatha Nath MukherjeeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.259 After discharging from
West BengalAIR1960SC810 warrant case trying summons case under
chapter 20 is valid
Zafar and othersVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.263 and 264 of old Cr.P.C Notes of
U.P.1968AWR(H.C.)38281 evidence when need not be retained
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Girraj Prasad MeenaVs.State of Rajasthan Cr.P.C. S.265 Plea bargaining in haste
and Ors.
Guerrero Lugo Elvia GrisselVs.The State Cr.P.C. S.265A Notification of the excluded
of Maharashtra2012CriLJ1136 Acts
Madras HC Cr.P.C. S.265E Court has no discretion to
State_By_vs_K.N.Nehru_on_3_November, award sentence other than one-fourth of the
_2011-1 punishment
Ramesh Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar Cr.P.C. S.267 Formal arrest of the accused in
And Ors. on 17 December, 1986 jail
State of Maharashtra Vs.Yadav Natthuji Cr.P.C. S.267 Non production of prisoners
Kohachade2000CriLJ959
State of Maharashtra and P.C. SinghVs.Dr. Cr.P.C. S.267 Procedure of Production
Praful B. Desai and Anr.AIR2003SC2053 warrant
The State of Maharashtra Vs.Bhaurao Cr.P.C. S.273 Evidence on commission
Doma Udan and Others1996(1)MhLj214 through VC allowed in Criminal cases
Abdul Cr.P.C. S.277 Marathi deposition will prevail
RahmanVs.Emperor1927(29)BOMLR813 over English
Mir Mohd. Omar and Ors.vs.State of West Cr.P.C. S.278 Not reding over deposition but
BengalAIR1989SC1785 making available for his reading was
sufficient
Trial not vitiated Shivnarayan Cr.P.C. S.278 Object is to ensure accuracy of
KabraVs.The State of evidence and to give witness concerned
MadrasAIR1967SC986 opportunity to point out mistakes
The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan Cr.P.C. S.279 Evidence's language unknown
Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008 to accused, but known to advocates.
Rajesh Kumar and Anr.Vs.State Govt. of Cr.P.C. S.291A Test Identification Parade
NCT of Delhi (2008)4SCC493 and purpose No provision in Cr.P.C. which
obliges investigation agency to hold
identification parade
Kodadi Srinivasa Lingam and Ors.Vs.State Cr.P.C. S.293(1) Not obligatory that the
of A.P.2001CriLJ602 A.P expert on the scientific issue of the chemical
examination of substance, should be made to
depose in proceedings before Court
Guwahati Sub-Divisional Market Cr.P.C. S.294 Admitted documents can be
CommitteeVs.Suresh read in evidence
Sikaria2013(4)GLT486
Himachal Pradesh AdministrationVs.Om Cr.P.C. S.294 application by accused shall be
PrakashAIR1972SC975 considered only statement of S.313
State of Punjab vs. Naib Cr.P.C. S.294 Proof without examining the
DinAIR2001SC3955 expert
Constitution Bench Dharam Pal and Cr.P.C. S.296 What is formal evidence which
Ors.Vs.State of Haryana and Anr.MANU- can be taken on affidavit is explained
SC-0720-2013
Jayendra Vishnu ThakurVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.299 and 193 After committal
Maharahstra and Anr.(2009)7SCC104 Sessions Judge has jurisdiction to summon
accused named in column no.2
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Jayendra Vishnu Thakur vs. State of
Maharahstra and Anr. (2009)7SCC104(1
Nirmal Singh Vs.State of
HaryanaAIR2000SC1416
Smt. Urmila SahuVs.State of
Orissa1998CriLJ1372 Orissa
Central Bureau of InvestigationVs.Abu
Salem Ansari and Anr.(2011)4SCC426
Monica BediVs.State of
A.P.(2011)1SCC284
Thomas DanaVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1959SC375
Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai PatelVs.State
of Gujarat and Anr.AIR2012SC2844
State of Karnataka through CBIVs.C.
NagarajaswamyAIR2005SC4308
Baban DaudVs.EmperorAIR1915Bom254
Mohammed Ajmal Mohammad Amir
KasabVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2012SC3565
Sitaram SaoVs.State of
JharkhandAIR2008SC391
Sitaram SaoVs.State of
JharkhandAIR2008SC391
Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr.
Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2000 SC
3352
Narayan Chetanram ChaudharyVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar Vs.
State of Maharashtra (2009)6SCC498
State of Himachal PradeshVs.Surinder
Mohan And OthersAIR2000SC1862
Cr.P.C. S.299 is applicable when the accused
intentionally makes inaccessable and not
merely when it is shown that it is not
possible to trace him
Cr.P.C. S.299 On surrender of accused
attachment to be vacated )
Cr.P.C. S.299 second part is exceptionto S.33
of Evidence Act
Cr.P.C. S.299 Unless common evidence is
recorded the evidence against the tried
accused cannot be read against absconding
accused
Cr.P.C. S.299(1) will be applicable if any of
its conditions are satisfied
Cr.P.C. S.300 Double jeopardy To operate as
a bar the second prosecution and the
consequential punishment thereunder, must
be for 'the same offence
Cr.P.C. S.300 Double Jeopardy's 3 requisites
Cr.P.C. S.300 No Double Jeopardy in
Dishonor of Cheque case even if there was a
case under S.420 IPC
Cr.P.C. S.300 P.C. Act S.19 Fresh trial not
barred when the Court had no jurisdiction to
take cognizance due to invaid sanction
Cr.P.C. S.301 Trial on Sunday without legal
aid was setaside
Cr.P.C. S.302 Free legal aid should be
provided from the stage of remand
Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover relied
Cr.P.C. S.306 Aprover was relied
Cr.P.C. S.306 Pardon is not right Aapplicable
without committal 307 applicable after
committal.doc
Cr.P.C. S.306(1) is invocable at
precommitmentS.307 is invocable at post-
commitment while state
Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon is not right
Aapplicable without committal 307
applicable after committal.doc
Cr.P.C. S.306(1) Pardon Procedure
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
A. DeivendranVs.State of
T.N.AIR1998SC2821
Asokan L.S.Vs.State of
Kerala2005CriLJ3848
The State of MaharashtraVs.Shanti Prasad
Jain1978MhLJ227
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary &
Anr.Vs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Mrinal Das and Ors.Vs.The State of
TripuraAIR2011SC3753
Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary and
Anr.Vs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2000SC3352
Jasbir Singhvs. Vipin Kumar Jaggi and
Ors.AIR2001SC2734
P. Ramachandra RaoVs.State of
KarnatakaAIR2002SC1856
Thana SinghVs.Central Bureau of
Narcotics2013CriLJ1262 circulated in
Pune
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab dd in
2012
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S.
Nayak and another etc.
etc.AIR1992SC1701
N.G. Dastanevs.Shrikant S. Shivde and
Anr.AIR2001SC2028
Bipin Shantilal PanchalVs.State of Gujarat
and Anr.AIR2001SC1158
Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc.Vs.R.S.
Nayak and another etc.
etc.AIR1992SC1701
Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath vs State of
Assam AIR2001SC2231
Hussainara Khatoon and Ors.Vs.Home
Secretary, State of Bihar,
PatnaAIR1979SC1360
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka Cr.P.C. S.309 Speedy trial is of the essence
AIR2002SC1856
Cr.P.C. S.306(4) Accused has no right of
cross examination of the approver
Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Examination of approver
is mandatory if pardon tendered before
committal but not mandatory if tendered by
sessions court after commital
Cr.P.C. S.306(4)(a) Statement of approver is
not admissibleunder S.33 Evi Act
Cr.P.C. S.306(5) CJM and ACJM and CMM
and ACMM have equal jurisdiction
Cr.P.C. S.307 After committal the approver
need not be examined twice
Cr.P.C. S.307 is applicable after committal
Cr.P.C. S.307 is invocable at post-
commitment while S.306 is invocable at
precommitment state
Cr.P.C. S.307 pardon is by Court NDPS Act
S.64 is by executive Later overrides
Cr.P.C. S.309 Common Cause and Rajdeo
Sharma Cases are overruled
Cr.P.C. S.309 Criminal Trials Directions for
day to day trials
Cr.P.C. S.309 Directions given not to grant
adjournments casually
Cr.P.C. S.309 It is neither permissible nor
possible nor desirable to lay down an outer
limit of time
Cr.P.C. S.309 Magistrate new spared from
adverse remarks for allowing Advocates
misconduct in seeking adjournment
Cr.P.C. S.309 Mark the objected document
tentatively as an exhibit
Cr.P.C. S.309 Neither permissible nor
possible nor desirable to lay down an outer
limit of time
Cr.P.C. S.309 On conviction accused to be
taken into custody pending punishment
of criminal justice
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
P. Ramachandra Rao Vs State of Karnataka
AIR2002SC1856
Mohd. KhalidVs.State of West
Bengal(2002)7SCC334
State of U.P. vs.Shambhu Nath Singh &
Ors.AIR2001SC1403
Sasi ThomasVs.State and
Ors.(2006)12SCC421
In Re_ Kesava Pillai and Anr.
AIR1929Mad837
Nageshwar Shri Krishna GhobeVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR1973SC165
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan,Vs.Union
Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli
2003BomCR(Cri)1103
Rajendra Prasad Vs.The Narcotic
CellAIR1999SC2292
Iddar and Ors.Vs.Aabida and
Anr.AIR2007SC3029
Rajendra Prasad vs The Narcotic Cell
Through Its AIR 1999 SC 2292
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan, Vs. Union
Territory Of Dadra And Nagar, 2004 CriLJ
150
Laxman alias Laxmayya Vs.The State of
Maharashtra 2012 Cri.L.J. 2826
Dr. Sunil Clifford DanielVs.State of
Punjab2012CriLJ4657 Prosecution
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of
Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214
State of MaharashtraVs.Maruti Dadu
Kamble1988MhLJ49
Jethalal GirdharlalVs.State of
Gujarat(1984)2GLR964
Cr.P.C. S.309 Supreme Court cannot fix time
for conclusion of trials
Cr.P.C. S.309 Time cannot be fixed by
Supreme Court for conclusion of trials
Cr.P.C. S.309 Unnecessary adjournments
give a scope for a grievance that accused
persons get a time to get over the witnesses
Cr.P.C. S.309 When witnesses are present
and accused causes adjournment Court can
remand accused or direct payment of
expenses present
Cr.P.C. S.311 Court can order further
investigation
Cr.P.C. S.311 Just decision does not
necessarily mean a decision in favour of
defence
Cr.P.C. S.311 Parties cannot control the
Court's discretion to have any additional
evidence
Cr.P.C. S.311 Recall of witness allowed
Cr.P.C. S.311 The power of the Court was
plenary to summon or even recall any
witness at any stage of the case
Cr.P.C. S.311 to be invoked Essential for just
decision
Cr.P.C. S.311 What is Lacuna. No party in a
trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors
Cr.P.C. S.311 Witness recalled to depose as
they turned hostile previously due to threats
by the accused
Cr.P.C. S.313 Accused be informed that he
can decline to give answers and his
inculpatory statements may be taken into
consideration
Cr.P.C. S.313 AND PC Act Failure of
accused to offer appropriate explanation or
giving false answer may be counted as
providing a missing link
Cr.P.C. S.313 Counsel cannot be examined
Cr.P.C. S.313 Statement is not evidence
Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr.
C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
In Re_ Kannammal alias Maunammal
92Ind. Cas.695
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of
Karnataka and
OthersAIR2000SC3214(3JJs)
Basavaraj R. Patil and OthersVs.State of
Karnataka and OthersAIR2000SC3214
Satyavir Singh RathiVs.State thr.
C.B.I.AIR2011SC1748
Messers Bhaskar Industries Ltd. Vs
Messers Bhiwani Denim and Apparels
Ltd.AIR2001SC3625
Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and
Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241
Bholu RamVs.State of Punjab and
Anr.2008 Cri.L.J. 4576 SC
Rakesh and Anr.vs.State of
HaryanaAIR2001SC2521
Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab
and Ors. etc. etc.2014(1)SCALE241
Hardeep Singh etc. Vs.State of Punjab and
Ors. AIR2014SC1400
Hardeep Singh etc. etc.Vs.State of Punjab
and Ors. etc. etc.AIR2014SC1400
Dr. S.S. KhannaVsChief Secretary, Patna
and Anr.AIR1983SC595(2Judges)
Uma Shankar Vs.State of Bihar and
Anr.(2010)9SCC479
Kishori Singh and Ors.Vs.State of Bihar
and Anr. AIR2000SC3725
Rajendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
AnrAIR2007SC2786
2012 STPL(Web) 521 SC
Bom FB Abasaheb Yadav Honmane
Vs.The State of Maharashtra2008 2
MhLj856
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Accused should be
warned
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Advocate cannot be
examined but questionire for accused can be
given
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Counsel cannot be
examined
Cr.P.C. S.313(1)(b) Statement is not
evidence
Cr.P.C. S.317 Personal exemption when can
be granted
Cr.P.C. S.319 A person discharged can be
arraigned again as accused after an inquiry as
contemplated by Section 300(5) and 398
(5JJs)
Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused can apply to
Magistrate
Cr.P.C. S.319 Accused named in FIR but
excluded police can be summoned even
without cross exam of the witness
Cr.P.C. S.319
Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained A
person discharged can be arraigned again as
accused after an inquiry as contemplated by
Section 300(5) and 398 (5JJs)
Cr.P.C. S.319 Larger Bench explained when
can section 319 be resorted
Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can proceed against
an accused whom the Magistrate refused to
summon
Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate can take
cognizance against the accused named in FIR
but omitted in the charge sheet
Cr.P.C. S.319 Magistrate cannot issue
process to FIR named but chargesheet
unnamed accused at committal stage (Two
Judges in)
Cr.P.C. S.319 Purpose of this power is
explained
Cr.P.C. S.320 and 482 FIR quashing When
can the HC on compromise
Cr.P.C. S.320 At any stage permissible
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Hirabhai Jhaverbhai vs State Of Gujarat & Cr.P.C. S.320 IPC S.324 offence before
Ors amendment is compundable
Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit
Ors.2009-2-UC879 for conciliation SC said
Rajesh Rajesh Kannan vs A.K. Murthy and Cr.P.C. S.320 Non-compoundable case unfit
Ors.2009-2-UC879 for mediation SC said
Hirabhai JhaverbhaiVs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.320 Offence of S.324 IPC prior to
and Ors.AIR2010SC2321 amendment is compoundable
Rameshchandra J. ThakkarVs.Assandas Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding is not
Parmanand Jhaveri, State of permissible
MaharashtraAIR1973SC84
Rajinder SinghVs.State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.320 Partly compounding was
Administration)AIR1980SC1200 maintained without discussion on validity
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.320 Referring to Larger Bench as
Anr.(2010)15SCC118 S.420 IPC is compoundable and S.120B is
non compoundable
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.320 Under S.482 non-
Maharashtra2008 2 MhLj856 compoundable offence's FIR can be quashed
Bom FB
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.320 When can the F.I.R. be
Anr.(2012)10SCC303 quashed guidelines given in
Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.321 Grounds for seeking Courts
Ors.AIR1987SC877 consent for withdrawal
Sheonandan PaswanVs.State of Bihar and Cr.P.C. S.321 Withdrawal permission
Ors.AIR1987SC877 principles discussed in
A.P. High Court Cr.P.C. S.323 and 325 Magistrate shall not
commit the case merely for severe
punishment
Sudhir and ors. etc.vs.State of M.P. Cr.P.C. S.323 Sessions Judge has power to
etc.AIR2001SC826 try any offence Cross cases should be tried
by him
Khoda Bux MalVs.Ohadali Cr.P.C. S.325 Magistrate has to write an
MalAIR1949Cal308 order but not judgment
II Addl. Judicial First Class Cr.P.C. S.325 When Magistrate cannot
MagistrateVs.State of A.P.2005CriLJ1168 exceed the limit of S.29 for want of special
DB provision he has to resort to S.325 and not
323
RajagopalVs.Forest Range Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record
Officer2012(1)CTC639 finding of guity and CJM cannot send back
case.
RajagopalVs.Forest Range Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate has to record
Officer2012(1)CTC639 finding of guity.
NageshVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.325(1) Magistrate to record finding
Karnataka1990CriLJ2234 and then refer to CJM
Jaikishan Kanjiwani Vs Kumar Matching Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence
Centre2011CriLJ134 and not substance of evidence is recorded
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Ramilaben Trikamlal ShahTube and Allied
Products and others
Navinchandra Hiralal Desai
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali 2012 CriLJ
4537
Ranbir Yadav Vs State of Bihar AIR 1995
SC 1219
Emperor Vs. Maung Ragoon HC relies on
Bombay
Pratibha Pandurang Salvi Vs. State of
Maharashtra 2010CriLJ730
Trial Mukesh and etc.Vs.State of
Rajasthan1998CriLJ2439
EmperorDurgaprasad Chunnilal and
Ors.AIR 1940 Nag 239
Tippanna Koutya Mannavaddar Bombay
DB AIR1934Bom157
MunicipalityNagindas Maganlal AIR 1953 Cr.P.C. S.326 Surat Borough
Bom 29
J.V. Baharuni vs. State of Gujarat (2014) Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and NI Act S.138 and 142
10 SCC 494
Nitinbhai Saevatilal Shah and
Anr.Vs.Manubhai Manjibhai Panchal and
Anr.AIR2011SC3076
Shyambahadur Purshottam SharmaVs.Shri. Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Denovo Trial not necessary
Sudhakar Narshu PoojaryMANU-MH-
1393-2013
K. JayachandranVsO. Nargeese and
Anr.1987CriLJ1997
Abdul Sukkur Barbhuiya Vs. the State of
Assam and others, Gauhati HC dd
24.01.2012 CrlRevP1922011
Reserve Bank Employees Association,
NagpurVs.State of Maharashtra and
Ors.AIR1969Bom199
State of Punjab Vs.Gurmit Singh and
Others AIR1 996 SC 1393
Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 Evidence
on affidavit followed by cross. De novo not
required
Cr.P.C. S.326 and N.I. Act S.138 In
summary trial only substance and not entire
sentence is recorded
Cr.P.C. S.326 Denovo Trial In an extremely
serious case of exceptional nature it would
occasion in failure of justice if Prosecution is
not taken to logical conclusion
Cr.P.C. S.326 Discretion given to court to
read previous evidence
Cr.P.C. S.326
Cr.P.C. S.326 Once the Magistrate used the
discretion to try summarily, on his transfer it
should be denovo
Cr.P.C. S.326 Rajastan HC in EC Act case
Summary
Cr.P.C. S.326 Substance of evidence can be
acted upon
Cr.P.C. S.326 Summary Trials Notes
Procedure
If the evidence was not recorded summarily
but fully then no need of denovo
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) and S.138 NI Act Pursis of
accused would not make legal to read
evidence recorded by previous Magistrate
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Justice Mridula Bhatkar's
judgment on summary trial
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) No need of denovo trial
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Sessions Court to record
evidence denovo
Cr.P.C. S.326(3) Succeeding Judge can
proceed (Case under old CR.P.C.)
Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera proceeding
directions
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Sakshi Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR
2004 SC 3566
The State of MaharashtraVs.Subhashsing
Shalikramsingh
Raghuwanshi1995(1)MhLj358
Ms. Leena Balkrishna NairVs.The State of
Maharashtra2010CriLJ3392
State of MaharashtraVs.Sukhdeo Singh
and anotherAIR1992SC2100
D.K. Basu Vs.State of West
BengalAIR1997SC610
Arun Paswan, S.I.Vs.State of Bihar and
Ors.JT2003(10)SC459
The Superintendent of PoliceVs.The
Judicial Magistrate Court,
CheyyarIV(2015)CCR502(Mad.)
Dayal Singh and Ors.Vs.State of
UttaranchalAIR2012SC3046
Satya NarainVs.State of
Rajasthan1987WLN(UC) Raj 458
A.T. PrakashanVs.The Excise Inspector
and Anr.2014ALLMR(Cri)1945
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme
(2014)5SCC108
State of Gujarat Vs. Kishanbhai Supreme
Court jjment dated 07.01.2014
Complainant GaneshaVs.Sharanappa and
anr.AIR2014SC1198
Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy
JosephVs.State of
Maharashtra(2014)4SCC69
2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC R.MOHAN
VS VIJAY KUMAR
R. VijayanVs.Baby and
Anr.AIR2012SC528
R. VijayanVs.Baby and
Anr.AIR2012SC528
Ankush Shivaji GaikwadVs.State of
MaharashtraAIR2013 SC 2454
Cr.P.C. S.327 In camera trial and not to
disclose the name of the victim
Cr.P.C. S.334 Acquittal case Course to be
adopted while acquitting on insanity ground
Cr.P.C. S.338 and IPC S.84 Accused was
acquitted and released under section 338 of
Cr.P.C.
Cr.P.C. S.342 (3) Answers given by accused
may be taken into consideration at enquiry or
trial
Cr.P.C. S.342 Compensation to the victim
Cr.P.C. S.345 Contempt of Court by police
officer
Cr.P.C. S.349 and 91 Notice should be issued
before taking action
Cr.P.C. S.353 Court is competent to direct
departmental action aginst erring officers
Cr.P.C. S.353 Judgment pronounced in
absence of accused was upheld as he was
present during the trial
Cr.P.C. S.353 Misquoting of the Section or
misapplying the provisions has caused no
prejudice Hence conviction maintained
Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs
to be recorded in each acquittal case whether
the lapse was innocent or blameworthy
Cr.P.C. S.354 Acquittal case A finding needs
to be recorded in each acquittal case whether
the lapse was innocent or blameworthy
Cr.P.C. S.354 and 154 The person who
lodges the FIR be called the Informant and
not the
Cr.P.C. S.354(3) Court has to discharge its
constitutional obligations and honour
legislative policy by awarding appropriate
sentence, that is will of people
Cr.P.C. S.357 and S.138 NI Act
Compensation default sentence
Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.
Act cases
Cr.P.C. S.357 Compensation in S.138 N.I.
Act cases should include costs and loss
Cr.P.C. S.357 Every Courts Mandatory duty
to consider compensation
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Ram Pal Vs. T.S. Thakur and Adarsh Cr.P.C. S.357 State to compensation in
Kumar Goes JT2015(2)SC496 S.304A IPC where accused is unable to pay
R. MohanVs.A.K. Vijaya Cr.P.C. S.357(3) (Simple) Imprisonment in
Kumar2012CriLJ3953 default of compensation was justified
Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co. Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Compensation to be less
Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007 than recoverable in civil court
K.A. Abbas H.S.A.Vs.Sabu Joseph and Cr.P.C. S.357(3) Default sentence of
Anr.(2010)6SCC230 compensation is legal
2012_STPL(Web)_338_SC Cr.P.C. S.357(3) jail if compensation is
unpaid explained
Sunil alias Pona Tolaram Pore (Varma) Cr.P.C. S.360 not applicable to Maharashtra
Vs. State of Maharashtra Probation not available for S.326 IPC
Chandreshwar SharmaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.361 Court shall give reasons for
Bihar(2000)9SCC245 denial of benefit of probation
Eliamma and Anr.Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.361 Mandatory to give reasons
Karnataka(2009)11SCC42
State of PunjabVs.Prem Sagar and Cr.P.C. S.361 Sentence would depend on
Ors.2008CriLJ3533 many factors
Rupam Pralhad Bhartiya Vs. State of Cr.P.C. S.361 Special Reasons to be given
Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-MH-1005- for not granting probation HC increased fine
2011 to one lakh
State of PunjabVs.Davinder Pal Singh Cr.P.C. S.362 High Court has no power
Bhullar and Ors under S.482 to review
Minu Kumari and Anr.Vs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.362 Magistrate can drop
Bihar and Ors.AIR2006SC1937 proceeding against against whom process
was issued by mistake
Mohd. Chaman Vs.State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Cr.P.C. S.366 propositions to be kept in mind
2001CriLJ725 for determination of question of death
sentence
In Re_ The Additional District Judge-cum- Cr.P.C. S.374 and 9 Additional Sessions
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam Judge can hear an appeal from Assistant
2003-1-LW(Crl)77 Sessions Judge if punishment was less than 7
years
State of MP V Bacchudas alias Balram and Cr.P.C. S.374 Appeallate Court duties
Ors - AIR2007SC1236
Dilip S. DhanukarVs.Kotak Mahindra Co. Cr.P.C. S.374 Right of appeal against
Ltd. and Anr.MANU-SC-8289-2007 conviction cannot be curtailed But appellate
court can impose condition for suspending
sentence
Messers Pioneer Castings and another Vs Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal lies to Sessions
Employees State Insurance Corporation Court and not HC
Notes Cr.P.C. S.374(2) Appeal to High Court when
lies
Sudhir Niranjan Chakre Vs.Rajesh Ramdas Cr.P.C. S.374(4) and 2(wa) and
Wankhade2014ALLMR(Cri)4624 407(1)(c)(iv)_ Victim can appeal to Sessions
Court and State to High Court against
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
acquittal Parties can pray high court to
transfer
The State of MaharashtraVs.Hanmant Cr.P.C. S.378 Against acquittal appeal lies to
Prabhakar Waidande and Ors.MANU-MH- sessions court in state case to high court in
0868-2006 complaint case
State (Delhi Cr.P.C. S.378 Limitation is 90 days for
Administration)vs.DharampalAIR2001SC2 Appeal by complainant to HC against
924 acquittal in Food Act case
EmperorVs.Lakshman Chavji Cr.P.C. S.381 Assistant and Additional
NarangikarAIR1931Bom313 Sessions Judges exercise jurisdiction of
Sessions Court
K.S. PandurangaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.384 to 386 Appeal once admitted -
KarnatakaAIR2013SC2164 has to be decided on merits even in absence
of accused
Kishori LalVs.Rupa and Cr.P.C. S.389 Appellate Court shall consider
Ors.(2004)7SCC638 nature of allegations etc for granting bail
State of PunjabVs.Deepak Cr.P.C. S.389 High court recalled its order
MattuAIR2008SC35
Kishori LalVs.Rupa and Cr.P.C. S.389(1) Appellate Court shall
Ors.(2004)7SCC638 consider nature of allegations etc for granting
bail
Mayuram Subramanian Cr.P.C. S.389(3) is applicable only when
SrinivasanVs.C.B.I.AIR2006SC2449 there is right to appeal
Bondada Gajapathy RaoVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.394 Old S.431 When appellant has
PradeshAIR1964SC1645 died Appeal against fine only can be allowed
to be continued but not against imprisonment
Raghu Raj Singh RoushaVs.Shivam Cr.P.C. S.397 against order refusing S.156
Sundaram Promoters ((2009)2SCC363 directing for inquiry Accused to be
impleaded
Hasmukh J. JhaveriVs.Shella Dadlani and Cr.P.C. S.397 and 146 Not interlocutory
another1981CriLJ958
Shivaji Vithalrao Bhikane Vs.Chandrasen Cr.P.C. S.397 and 156(3) Interference with
Jagdevrao Deshmukh 2008CriLJ3761 order under Section 156(3) should normally
be confined to cases in which there are some
very exceptional circumstances
State of KeralaVs.K.M. Charia Abdullah Cr.P.C. S.397 Distinction between Appeal
and Co.AIR1965SC1585 and Revision
K. Chinnaswamy ReddyVs.State of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.397 Evi Act S.27 misinterpreted by
PradeshAIR1962SC1788 appellate Court Rehearing ordered
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397 Interlocutory order test
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47 explained
D. StephensVs.NosibollaAIR1951SC196 Cr.P.C. S.397 Jurisdiction not to be lightly
exercised when invoked by a private
complainant against an order of acquittal
against which the Government has a right of
appeal under section
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47
Mohit alias Sonu and Anr.Vs.State of U.P. Cr.P.C. S.397 Order which substantially
and Anr.MANU-SC-0633-2013 affects the right of the accused, or decides
certain rights of the parties cannot be said to
be an interlocutory order
Raj Kapoor and Ors.Vs.State and Cr.P.C. S.397 Petition under section 482
Ors.AIR1980SC258 converted to revision
Mr. Joaquim Anthony D'Souza Anthony Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against interim
D'SouzaVs.Mrs. Milinda Rosy D'Souza maintenace tenable
YogeshVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision against order
Maharashtra2015(1)BomCR(Cri)750 directing complainant to remain present for
verification is not tenable
Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P. Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision order setting aside
and anotherAIR1997SC2485 acquittal and retrial direction upheld- I.O.
findings not evidence
State of Maharashtra vs. Jagmohan Singh Cr.P.C. S.397 Revision
Kuldip Singh and Others, 2004 (7) SCC
659
K.K. Patel and Anr.Vs.State of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.397 Test whether interlocutory
and Anr.AIR2000SC3346
Madhu LimayeVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.397 What is interim order is
MaharashtraAIR1978SC47 explained
Kaptan Singh and others Vs.State of M.P. Cr.P.C. S.401 Scope of revision explained
and anotherAIR1997SC2485
In Re_ District and Sessions Judge Raisen
Cr.P.C. S.409(2) Sessions Judge has power
2005(3)MPLJ26 to transfer partheard sessions case without
hearing
EmperorVs.Chunilal Cr.P.C. S.412 (Old) Accused who pleaded
Hargovan1926(28)BOMLR1023 guilty can contend that his conviction was
illegal
Mr. Parkar Hasan Abdul GafoorVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.413 Surety is not automatically
Maharashtra & others1999(5)BomCR481 discharged
DhanapalVs.State by Public Prosecutor Cr.P.C. S.417 Criminal Appellate Court
2009 Cri.L.J. 4647 When can interefere
Aher Raja KhimaVs.The State of Cr.P.C. S.417 It is not enough to take a
SaurashtraAIR1956SC217 different view of the evidence and there must
also be substantial and compelling reasons
for holding that the trial Court was wrong
Shankar Kerba Jadhav and Ors.Vs.The Cr.P.C. S.423(1) High Court set aside
State of MaharashtraAIR1971SC840 acquittal by sessions. It can exceed original
sentence Appellate Courts Power of
punishment.doc
M.R. Kudva Appellant vs State Of Andhra Cr.P.C. S.427 Concurrent plea has been
Pradesh 2007 (1) Crimes 50 (SC) rejected as offences were different
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv
Chhokha Sable vs State Of
Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469
Bapurao Trimbakrao SonawaneVs.The
State of Maharashtra and The
Superintendent of
Police2009(111)BOMLR1271
Emperor vs Waman Dinkar Kelkar 20
BOMLR 998
Rajendra B. Choudhari vs State Of
Maharashtra And Anr 2007CriLJ844
Gulab Gaibu Shaikh Vs The State Of
Maharashtra 2001ALLMR(Cri)1404
Ranjit Singh vs Union Territory Of
Chandigarh AIR 1991 SC 2296
Cr.P.C. S.427 Sentence No Policy Soman
Vs State of Kerala 2012(12)SCALE719
Cr.P.C. S.427 State Of Maharashtra vs
Raju Dadaba Borge 2001 CriLJ 3638
Cr.P.C. S.427 Sunil Anandrao Sawant Vs
Government Of Maharashtra
Ammavasai and AnrVs.Inspector of Police
and Ors.AIR2000SC3544
Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Ibrahim
Ahmed BhattiVs.Assistant Collector of
Customs AIR1988SC2143
Sadashiv Chhokha Sable Sadashiv
Chhokha Sable vs State Of
Maharashtra1993 CriLJ 1469
M.R. KudvaVs.State of Andhra
PradeshAIR2007SC568
Narayanan NambeesanVs.The State of
Maharashtra1974(76)BOMLR690
Shiv Mohan SinghVs.The State (Delhi
Administration)AIR1977SC949
Namdeo @ Ram Krushna KhotVs.The
State of Maharashtra2006(6)MhLj783
State of Maharashtra and Anr.vs.Najakat
Alia Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255
Cr.P.C. S.427 Cr.P.C. Undergoing sentence
means
Cr.P.C. S.427 Different cheques of same
transaction with common notice can be trial
at one trial
Cr.P.C. S.427
Cr.P.C. S.427 Four cases of S.138 NI Act
consecutive sentence justified
Cr.P.C. S.427
Cr.P.C. S.427
Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has been
considered
Cr.P.C. S.427 Totality of sentence has to be
considered
Cr.P.C. S.427 Undergoing sentence means
Cr.P.C. S.427 Whether concurrent or
consecutive has to be considered by the latter
Court convicting
Cr.P.C. S.428 Courts should specify the pre-
conviction detention. Procedural law is
retrospective gives benefit to all convicts
Cr.P.C. S.428 Death sentence validity upheld
Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off if not given simple
misc. application is sufficient
Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off is entitled for the
period of detention in the instant crime
though during same period he was
undergoing sentence in another case
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Maharashtra and Anr. vs. Najakat Alia
Mubarak Ali AIR2001SC2255
Dinesh M.N. (S.P.)Vs.State of
GujaratAIR2008SC2318
SC in Swamy Shraddananda Murali
Manohar Mishra vs Vs.State Of Karnataka
on 22 July, 2008
State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and
HarpalAIR2010SC1690Remission
State of Haryana and Ors.Vs.Jagdish and
HarpalAIR2010SC1690
Mulla and Anr.Vs.State of Uttar
PradeshAIR2010SC942
Rasiklal Vs. Kisore Khanchand
WadhwaniAIR2009SC1341
Salim Ikramuddin Ansari and
Anr.Vs.Officer-in-Charge, Borivali Police
Station and Ors.2004(4)MhLj725
Sukhwant Singh & Ors. Vs. State Of
Punjab (2009) 7 SCC 559
Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of
Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312
Monit MalhotraVs.The State of
Rajasthan1991CriLJ806
Siddharam Satlingappa MhetreVs.State of
Maharashtra and Ors.AIR2011SC312
Sandeep Jain Vs National Capital Territory
of Delhi Rep. by Secretary, Home Deptt.
(18.01.2000 - SC)
UttamkumarVs.The State of
Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)697
Cr.P.C. S.428 Set off of the detention in
sentenced case is available even if accused
was simultaneous undergoing sentence in
other case
Cr.P.C. S.429(2) Trial is not likely to be
concluded in the near future or the period of
incarceration would not be sufficient for
granting bail
Cr.P.C. S.433 Life imprisonment with
direction for rest of life
Cr.P.C. S.433A Case of convict was to be
considered on strength of policy on existing
date of his conviction
Cr.P.C. S.433A For remission policy as on
conviction date would prevail. If beneficial
to convict policy as on date of consideration
also applicable
Cr.P.C. S.433A Life imprisonment is for 20
years unless directed otherwise
Cr.P.C. S.436 Bail in bailable offences is rule
Cr.P.C. S.436 Court to call information
whether the accused was released on bail or
not
Cr.P.C. S.436 Interim Bail is inherent
Cr.P.C. S.436
Cr.P.C. S.436 The accused in bailable
offence bailed out by police need not apply
to the Maigsitrate for fresh bail
Cr.P.C. S.436 to 450
Cr.P.C. S.437 Accused cannot be kept in jail
for failure to make payment as per bail order.
Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 Accused again
arrested for added offence
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Uttamkumar Vs. The State of Maharashtra
2012 Bom C.R.(Cri) 697
Bom HC Ambarish Rangshahi Patnigere vs Cr.P.C. S.437 and I.P.C. S.409 JMFC has
The State Of Maharashtra
2012(1)MhLj900
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. V.
Vijay Sai Reddy AIR2013SC2216
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs
Cbi
State of MaharashtraVs.Kaushar Yasin
Qureshi and another1996(2)MhLj485
Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of
Maharashtra and Anr.2014(4)SCALE215
Nandini BhatnagarVs.State Govt. of NCT
of DelhiI(2013)DMC495
Km. Hema MishraVs.State of U.P. and
Ors.AIR2014SC1066
UP FB in Amarawati and Anr.
(Smt.)Vs.State of U.P.2005CriLJ755
Sukhwant singh vs state of punjab
2010CriLJ1435 and (2009) 7 SCC 559
The Balasaheb Satbhai Merchant ... vs The Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate can grant bail in
State Of Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)841 S.409 IPC as triable by himself held by
EmperorVs.Rautmal Kanumal
MarwadiAIR1940Bom40
Batta Hanuman Vishwanath Nehare Vs.
State Of Maharashtra 2001(3)MhLj465
Ramji Vs.State of Punjab MANU-PH-
0150-2001
Mr. Ishan Vasant Deshmukh alias Prasad
Vasant KulkarniVs.The State of
Maharashtra2011(2)MhLj361R.C. Chavan,
J
Allahabad HC Ram Bharoshi and
Ors.Vs.State of U.P. and
Anr.2004(3)ACR2563
Cr.P.C. S.437 and 439 After bail police
added life or death section Magistrate cannot
release otherwise he can additional surety
power to grant bail
Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail cancelled accused rected
to surrender
Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail considerations
Cr.P.C. S.437 Bail for S.326 by Magistrate
sustained, bail for S.302 cancelled
Cr.P.C. S.437 Before taking the accused into
judicial custody there would be arrest
Cr.P.C. S.437 Condition not to go abroad
without permission deleted
Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court shall not direct
subordinate to decide bail application on
same day Interim bail is permissible,
Cr.P.C. S.437 High Court should ordinarily
not direct any subordinate court to decide the
bail application the same day-
Cr.P.C. S.437 Interim Bail is Inherent Power
Justice Potdar
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has inherent power
to cancel bail which was granted by another
Magistrate for the smooth trial
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has no power of
bail in life term cases held by Justice
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
bail in offences triable by him PH HC
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
bail in S.409 and 467 IPC case
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate has power to grant
bail in sessions triable offence not punishable
with life or death
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi AIR
2001 SC 1444
Jyoti Kaut Kohli Vs. State of Maha
Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of
BiharAIR1964SC1
Ganeshanan Lakshmanan and Anr.Vs.The
State of MaharashtraMANU-MH-0345-
2009
Dr. Raghubir SharanVs.The State of
BiharAIR1964SC1
Santosh Bhaurao RautVs.State of
Maharashtra1989MhLJ162
BhagwatVs.State of Maharashtra and Anr
Union of India and others Vs.Major
General Madan Lal Yadav AIR 1996 SC
1340
Cr.P.C. S.437A Allahabad HC Syed
ArmanVs.State of U.P.2012ACR1681
Balkrishna Mahadev LadVs.State of
Maharashtra2012BomCR(Cri)300
Sareena, O.P.Vs.State of
KeralaILR2013(1)Kerala537
2012_STPL(Web)_470_SC
Rakesh Baban BorhadeVs.State of
MaharashtraDecided On_ 19.11.2014
Asaram Sitaram PadoleVs.Yadaorao
Raghobaji Hatwar and
Ors.1991(93)BOMLR994
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs. Union
of India and ors.(2002)2SCC210
Cr.P.C. S.437 Magistrate shall not grant bail
in sessions triable offence Anticipatory bail
for lessor offence
Cr.P.C. S.437 Powers of Magistrate referred
for larger bench
Cr.P.C. S.437 Second Opinion -When
medical reason is a ground for bail the
Magistrate can call for detailed report from
medical officer
Cr.P.C. S.437 Solvency Certificate need not
be insisted for always
Cr.P.C. S.437 When medical reason is a
ground for bail the Magistrate can call for
detailed report from medical officer
Cr.P.C. S.437(1)(i) attracted even if the law
prescribes death or imprisonment for life as
the maximum
Cr.P.C. S.437(5) Cancellation of bail for
breach of condition of attending police
station was set aside
Cr.P.C. S.437(6) Trial commences when the
matter is posted for evidence
Cr.P.C. S.437A and 390 Accused even after
acquittal can be detained for not furnishing
surety
Cr.P.C. S.437A not mandatory
Cr.P.C. S.438 An Absconding accused is not
entitled for anticipatory bail
Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail cannot be
granted as a rule but subject to satisfaction
that the accused would not misuse
Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail continues till
cancellation or trial is over
Cr.P.C. S.438 Anticipatory bail refused in
while collored crimes of cheating in
numerous states
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
State State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Cr.P.C. S.438 Application to be heard by the
Brojen Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101 High Court having jurisdiction over the place
of offence with notice to that
Sumit MehtaVs.State of N.C.T. of Delhi Cr.P.C. S.438 Deposit condition deleted
J. Bhatkar ordjud Cr.P.C. S.438 does not lie against non-
bailable warrant by Magistrate
MP HC Cr.P.C. S.438 High Court not to grant
Dr._Pradeep_Kumar_Soni_vs_State_Of_M anticipatory bail for crime in another state
adhya_Pradesh_on_13_March,_1990
Mukesh Kishanpuria Vs. State of West Cr.P.C. S.438 Interim Bail -Grant of regular
Bengal 2010 (4) SCALE 649 bail includes power to grant interim bail
pending main application
Harjit SinghVs.Union of India (UOI) and Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court
Ors.1994CriLJ3134 having local jurisdiction
Dr. Pradeep Kumar SoniVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction lies with the court
Madhya Pradesh1990CriLJ2055 where offence took place
State of Assam and Anr.Vs.Dr. Brojen Cr.P.C. S.438 Jurisdiction_ Application to be
Gogol and Ors.AIR1997SC4101 heard by the High Court having jurisdiction
over the place of offence with notice to that
State
Narinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. vs.Union Cr.P.C. S.438 Not applicable to person
of India and ors already arrested and in prison
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and Cr.P.C. S.438 When can anticipatory bail
Ors.Vs.State of PunjabAIR1980SC1632 granted is explained
Niranjan Singh and Anr.Vs.Prabhakar Cr.P.C. S.439 Appearance of accused before
Rajaram Kharote and Ors.AIR1980SC785 the Court amounts to custody
C.B.I.New Delhi Vs. Abhishek Verma Cr.P.C. S.439 Bail matter
Anilkumar vs State Of Maharashtra on Cr.P.C. S.439 Cancellation of bail
15.11.1989
Anwari BegumVs.Sher Mohammad and Cr.P.C. S.439 Factors to be considered for
Anr.AIR2005SC3530 bail are discussed
Amarawati and Anr. (Smt.)Vs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Interim bail can be granted on
U.P.2005CriLJ755 the same day UP FB in
Neeru YadavVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Parity ground is not absolute
U.P.2014(14)SCALE59 Antecedents of applicant may warrant
rejection of bail
Niranjan Singh & Anr vs Prabhakar Cr.P.C. S.439 Submitting to the Court also
Rajaram Kharote & ors 1980 AIR 785 amounts to custody
Sundeep Kumar BafnaVs.State of Cr.P.C. S.439 Surrender before Sessions
Maharashtra and Anr.MANU-SC-0239- Court and bail application
2014
Dinesh Singh Arjun SinghVs.State of U.P. Cr.P.C. S.439(1) Bail order cancelled by
and Pramod Singh Bhagwan Singh High court itself
Jai KrishanVs.The State of Punjab and Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail obtained by fraud
Others2010(1)RCR(Criminal)249 Punjab
Dinesh M_N_ (S_P_) vs State Of Gujarat Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Bail when to cancel
on 28 April, 2008
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas &
Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001
Puran, Shekhar And Anr vs Rambilas &
Anr., State Of ... on 3 May, 2001
Dr_ Narendra K Amin vs State Of Gujarat
And Anr on 28 April, 2008
State (Delhi Administration)Vs.Sanjay
GandhiAIR1978SC961
Free Legal Aid CommitteeVs.State of
BiharAIR1982SC1463
Mr. Sajal Kumar Mitra and Ors.Vs.The
State of Maharashtra2011CriLJ2744
Bhoja Babu Salian vs State Of
Maharashtra1983 (2) BomCR 165
Ghulam Mehdi vs State Of Rajasthan
AIR1960SC1185
Divisional Forest Officer and Anr.Vs.G.V.
Sudhakar Rao and Ors.MANU-SC-0069-
1985
General Insurance Council and
Ors.Vs.State of Andhra Pradesh and
Ors.2010CriLJ2883
Delhi Excise Act State (NCT of
Delhi)Vs.Narender MANU-SC-0010-2014
State Bank of IndiaVs.Rajendra Kumar
Singh and Ors.AIR1969SC401
State (NCT of
Delhi)Vs.Narender2014ALLMR(Cri)736
State of KarnatakaVs.K.A.
KunchindammedAIR2002SC1875
Navin Vasantraj Modh Vs State of
Maharashtra 2012BomCR(Cri)685
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai And C.M. ... vs
State Of Gujarat on 1 October, 2002
State of U.P. and Anr.Vs.Lalloo
Singh(2007)7SCC334
Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai and C.M.
MudaliarVs.State of
GujaratAIR2003SC638
Prakash Tarachand SakhreVs.Ashok
Pundloikrao Wajge and
Anr.2001CriLJ3024
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail
justified
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) Cancellation of bail
Cr.P.C. S.439(2) When can the bail be
cancelled
Cr.P.C. S.439(2)_ Bail can be cancelled on
allegation of tampering Bombay case
referred in
Cr.P.C. S.441(3) and 209 Bail bond is for
appearance before Sessions Court also
Cr.P.C. S.445 Pending surety verification
Magistrates has power to release accused on
cash surety and thereafter asking him to
furnish solvent sureties
Cr.P.C. S.446 Forfeit first and then issue
show cause notice to recover amount
Cr.P.C. S.446 Show cause notice necessary
Cr.P.C. S.451 and 452 explained in Forest
Act Case
Cr.P.C. S.451 and 457 Supreme Court
directions regarding custody of seized
properties
Cr.P.C. S.451 Magistrate has no jurisdiction
to release vehicle under
Cr.P.C. S.451 Party adversely affected
should be heard before the Court makes an
order for return of the seized property
Cr.P.C. S.457 and Excise Act Due to
confiscation clause Magistrate has no
jurisdiction to release vehicle
Cr.P.C. S.457 and Forest Act Magistrate has
no jurisdiction to give interim custody
Cr.P.C. S.457 Aplication was directed to be
decided at the end
Cr.P.C. S.457 Directions regarding disposal
of seized properties
Cr.P.C. S.457 is not applicable in view of
S.50 of Wild Life Act
Cr.P.C. S.457 Supreme Court guidelines for
disposal of properties
Cr.P.C. S.457 When it is proved that T.T.
forms were submitted non-transfer of
registration of vehicle does not matter
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Central Bureau of Investigation Vs.V.K.
SehgalAIR1999SC3706
Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar
MohantyAIR2007SC2762
Limination Arun Vyas & Anr vs Anita
Vyas on 14 May, 1999
Japani SahooVs.Chandra Sekhar
MohantyAIR2007SC2762
State Of Punjab vs Sarwan Singh1981
SCALE (1)619
Jethmal Himmatmal Jain and
othersVs.State of
Maharashtra1981CriLJ1813
Rakesh Kumar JainVs.State Through CBI
AIR 2000 SC 2754
Mrs. Sarah MathewVs.The Institute of
Cardio Vascular DiseasesMANU-SC-
1210-2013
Kanwardeepsingh Harbansingh
BediVs.The State of
Maharashtra2010CriLJ315
Kailash Shreekisan ChaurasiaVs.State of
Maharashtra & Ors.2012BomCR(Cri)83
Modilal Kaluram Kachhara and
etc.Vs.State of Maharashtra MANU-MH-
0041-1988
Abasaheb Yadav Honmane And ___ vs Cr.P.C. S.482 No compounding of
The State Of Maharashtra on 12 March, noncompoundable offences
2008
Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia & Ors_ Vs_ Cr.P.C. S.482 When can FIR be quashed
State Of Punjab & Ors_ on 5 May, 2009
Cr.P.C. S.465(2) Court to consider whether
objection had raised objection PC Act S.19
Cr.P.C. S.468 Date of filing complaint and
not cognizance be counted
Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitaion Rational and
Purpose behind
Cr.P.C. S.468 Limitation Date of filing
complaint and not cognizance be counted
Cr.P.C. S.468(2) Bar of limitation on
prosecutions was clearly to prevent the
parties from filing cases after a long time
Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay should be explained in
the complaint or separate application and
Court should pass speaking order
Cr.P.C. S.473 Delay stood explained
Cr.P.C. S.473 Interest of justice cannot be
interpreted to mean in the interest of
prosecution
Cr.P.C. S.473 Notice to accused before
taking cognizance is not contemplated
Cr.P.C. S.475 and Court Martial (A.o.J)
Rules, 1952 Notice to Commandant
necessary
Cr.P.C. S.475 Central Govt to decide
Military Authority or Criminal Court
Accused did not ask for counsel hence no
prejudice
Cr.P.C. S.482 and 397 Bombay HC Ramona
M. Chandiramani Revision against issue
process order tenable
Cr.P.C. S.482 Avinash Madhukar
Mukhedkar vs. The State of Maharashtra
NOT FOLLOWED
Cr.P.C. S.482 Case transfer from one
Magistrate to another Magistrate rejected
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Gian SinghVs.State of Punjab and
Anr.2012BomCR(Cri)428
Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of
Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075
Rengaswami NaickerVs.Muruga
NaickenAIR1954Mad169
Talab Haji HussainVs.Madhukar
Purshottam Mondkar and
Anr.AIR1958SC376
State of GujaratVs.Krushnmorari
Ramkrushna Gupta and
Ors(1988)2GLR965
The State Of Maharashtra vs Manik Mohan
Gaikwad on 26 November, 2008
Sanction Matajog DobeyVs.H.C.
BhariAIR1956SC44
Banslochan Lal and
Anr.Vs.EmperorAIR1930Pat195
Human Rights CommissionVs.State of
Gujarat and Ors.(2009)6SCC342
Nanak ChandVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1955SC274
Ramesh Vithal PatilVs.State of Karnataka
and Ors.2014(2)Crimes227(SC)
K. Prema S. Rao and Anr.Vs.Yadla
Srinivasa Rao and OrsAIR2003SC11
State of MaharashtraVs.Vishwanath
Tukaram Umale and Ors.AIR1979SC1825
Union of India (UOI) and Anr.Vs.B.N.
Ananti Padmanabiah etc.AIR1971SC1836
Madhav RaojiVs.StateAIR1952Bom385
Ashok Gyanchand Vohra vs The State Of
Maharashtra And Anr
Kartar SinghVs.State of
Punjab(1994)3SCC569
Sau Devakibai Vs State of Maharashtra
Bombay HC decided on 24.07.2014
Ramesh vs State Of Rajasthan on 22
February, 2011
Mahadeo Amrut GajbhiyeVs. The State of
Maharashtra1974CriLJ1075
Cr.P.C. S.482 Which offences can be
quashed SC in
Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Old Code Accused did not
execute PRBond Hence, surety not
enforceable Mahadeo
Cr.P.C. S.511 Old Code Judge must watch
that justice triumphs
Cr.P.C. S.561A (Old Section) High Court
can cancel bail in bailable offence
Cr.P.C. S.Pleading guilty After explaining
charge Court should inform about minimum
sentence unless special reasons are shown
Cr.P.C. T.I. Parade and purpose No provision
in Cr.P.C. which obliges investigation
agency to hold identification parade
Cr.PC. S.197 Constitution Bench on
necessity of
How to deal with certain advocates
Fair Trial and About Witnesses protection
National
I.P.C. S.34 AND 149 Distinction is explained
IPC S.304B and 498A conviction under
section 306
IPC S.304B charged but convicted for
S.498A and 306
IPC S.411 and Police Act S.124 and Railway
Property Act S.3 Possession of property need
not be necessarily a subsisting possession
JMFC has jurisdiction throughout District
M.V. Act Old S.113 Conviction upheld
though summons were served after 28 days
MCOCA S.9 and 23 Private Complaint
tenable
Mens rea and Law and Order and Pith and
Substance
MRTP Act S.142 Prosecution not tenable for
want of previous sanction
Murder of Money Lender Case
Old Cr.P.C. S.499(1) Accused did not
execute PRBond Hence, surety not
enforceable
 https://t.me/LawCollegeNotes_Stuffs
Association Vs.Union of India (UOI)
Through its Secretary,AIR2011Bom171
Diwan BhaiVsUnion of India and
OrsMANU DE 1823 2001
Thomas DanaVs.The State of
PunjabAIR1959SC375
Champaklal GaneshmalVs.The State of
MaharashtraAIR1975SC160
Aher Raja Khima vs The State Of
Saurashtra on 22 December, 1955
The_State_Of_Maharashtra_And_Etc._..._
vs_Saeed_Sohail_Sheikh_Etc._Etc._on_2_
November,_2012
Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma ROLE
OF PROSECUTOR
Shri Sandeep Indravadan SagarVs.State of
Maharashtra and others decided on
10.01.2013
The Food InspectorVs.M. Pandarinath and
Anr.1992(2)APLJ396
Hardeep Singh SohalVs.State of Punjab
through(2004)11SCC612
PCPNDT Circular for online information
was upheld Radiological and Imaging
Plea not signed by accused no interference
Penalty and Punishment difference
Police Act S.124 Possession of foreign made
wrist watches unexplained Hence conviction
upheld
Police Credibility
Prisoners Act S.29(2) Not applicable to
undertrial prisoners
Prosecutor's role explained and Delay in
recording the statement of the witnesses do
not necessarily discredit their testimonies
Rubber stamp use -mentioned
Sanction and Consent Explained
TADA S.15(1) Confession cannot be used
against coaccused in other than joint trial