MICHAL MACHADO AND ANR. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

MICHAL MACHADO AND ANR. versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR.

Suspicion arising from evidence of three witnesses is not sufficient to hold that there is reasonable prospect of convicting the appellants; therefore, exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead appellants at this late stage, requiring re-examination of many witnesses and waste of judicial resources, is not justified.

Parties
Appellant: Michal Machado; Appellant: N. Ramamurthy; Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation; Respondent: Corporation Bank
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Criminal Procedure Code Section 319, Criminal Conspiracy, Cheating, Forgery
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure Code Section 319 Criminal Conspiracy Cheating Forgery

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michal Machado

Appellant

N. Ramamurthy

Appellant

Central Bureau of Investigation

Respondent

Corporation Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Supreme Court Appellate Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court rightly exercised its discretion under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead appellants as accused based on evidence creating suspicion
  2. 2 What are the essential conditions for exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi

Suspicion arising from evidence of three witnesses is not sufficient to hold that there is reasonable prospect of convicting the appellants; therefore, exercise of power under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to implead appellants at this late stage, requiring re-examination of many witnesses and waste of judicial resources, is not justified.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Impugned judgment of the High Court and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate set aside
  • Trial to proceed against existing accused only, not against the appellants