The Criminal Procedure Rule Committee has made a new consolidation of the Criminal Procedure Rules. The 2020 Rules replace the Criminal Procedure Rules 2015 and the amendments made to those rules since then. The new rules come into force on Monday 5 October 2020.
Let us compare the criminal procedure of the Romans with ours. With them, the evidence were heard publicly in presence of the accused, who might answer or interrogate them, or employ counsel. This procedure was open and noble; it breathed Roman magnanimity.
The National Criminal Procedure (Code) Act, 2017 (Revised) Date of Authentication: 16 October 2017 Act Number 37 of the year 2017 An Act Made To Amend And Consolidate Laws Relating to Procedures […]
Courts shall apply Shari’ah principles, as derived from the Qur’an and Sunnah (the traditions of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him) to the cases that are brought before them. They shall also apply laws promulgated by the state that do not contradict the provisions of the Qur’an and Sunnah, and shall comply with the procedure set forth in this Law.
The provisions of this Law shall apply to criminal cases that have not been decided and to proceedings that have not been completed prior to the implementation thereof.
The aim of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China is: to ensure accurate and timely ascertainment of facts about crimes, correct application of law, punishment of criminals and protection of the innocent against being investigated for criminal responsibility; to enhance the citizens’ awareness of the need to abide by law and to fight vigorously against criminal acts in order to safeguard the socialist legal system, to protect the citizens’ personal rights; their property rights, democratic rights and other rights; and to guarantee smooth progress of the cause of socialist development.
Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code-the accused was examined under S. 273, Hyderabad Criminal P.C. which corresponds to S. 342, Indian Criminal P.C., and on 5th of December following charges were framed against him under Ss. 123, 124, 330 and 177 read with S. 66, Hyderabad Penal Code. The cross-examination of 18 prosecution witnesses was finished before 26-1-1959, and the rest of the witnesses were cross-examined after that date.
These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the United States district courts, the United States courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court of the United States. Proceedings not governed […]
But when “information” is regarded as meaning instruction or knowledge as to law the position is more complex. When we speak of “law,” we ordinarily speak of norms or guiding principles having legal effect and legal consequences.
Before the Family Court, an application under Section 125, Cr.PC has been filed by the respondents for maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondents filed their affidavit in evidence and petitioner has been directed to cross-examine on the affidavit. At this stage, petitioner raised an objection in writing that in the proceedings, evidence can not be taken on affidavit, but the respondent should be examined in the Court in the presence of petitioner or his Counsel. Family Court relying on Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act found that the Family Court is having jurisdiction to adopt its own procedure for recording evidence and relying on provisions of Code of Civil Procedure held that the affidavit can be received in evidence and rejected the application of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this petition.
Power under Section 319 of the Code can be exercised by the Court suo motu or on an application by someone including accused already before it, if it is satisfied that any person other than accused has committed an offence and he is to be tried together with the accused. The power is discretionary and such discretion must be exercised judicially having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Undisputedly, it is an extraordinary power which is conferred on the Court and should be used very sparingly and only if compelling reasons exist for taking action against a person against whom action had not been taken earlier. The word “EVIDENCE” in Section 319 contemplates EVIDENCE of witnesses given in Court. Under sub-section (4)(1)(b) of the aforesaid provision, it is specifically made clear that it will be presumed that newly added person had been an accused person when the Court took cognizance of the offence upon which the inquiry or trial was commenced. That would show that by virtue of sub-section (4)(1)(b) a legal fiction is created that cognizance would be presumed to have been taken so far as newly added accused is concerned. (See Lok Ram v. Nihal Singh and Anr. (AIR 2006 SC 1892)).
中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法 (Adopted at the Second Session of the Fifth National People’s Congress on July 1, 1979, and amended for the first time in according with the Decision on Amending the Criminal Procedure […]