Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 265-K,561-A

Law: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005

Section: 3,4

(a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 265-K & 561-A---Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005), Ss.3 & 4---Illegal dispossession---Dismissal of application for acquittal of accused---Validity---Applicant, from the very beginning had contended that he had nothing to do with the shop in question but he was running his business in a different shop---Inquiry report submitted by the Police revealed that original owner of shop in question was in possession of said shop and was running his business therein---Trial Court did not consider the grounds raised by the accused in his application filed under S.265-K, Cr.P.C.---Accused had also filed affidavit wherein he had reiterated that he had no concern with the shop in question---Trial Court did not record the reasons with regard to statement of the accused, wherein he had denied the ownership or the possession of shop in question---Trial Court was bound to ascertain correct factual position as per allegations made in the complaint---Three consecutive reports submitted by the Police had not been considered; and the contents of application under S.265-K, Cr.P.C., as well as the statement of accused, had also been ignored---Findings and observations of the Trial Court that since allegation had been made, accused/applicant, must undergo the purgation of a criminal trial, was a mockery of whole system, which had nullified the purpose, for which provision of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., were made---Section 265-K, Cr.P.C., allowed the court to exercise discretion to foster administration of criminal justice, but the Trial Court had failed to exercise such discretion---Reasons recorded by passing the impugned order were not plausible, exhaustive or judicious exercise---Impugned order was set aside and applicant was acquitted, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 265-K---Power of the court to acquit accused---Provision of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., was self-explanatory, that accused could be acquitted at any stage of the case even without recording the evidence, when there was no probability of accused being convicted of any offence---Provision of S.265-K, Cr.P.C., were meant to prevent the rigour…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492