DID SARA MATHEWS OVERRULE SHARADCHANDRA VINAYAK

Authors

  • Raghu Raman

Keywords:

Sarah Matthews, offences, Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre, accused, Code of Criminal Procedure 1973

Abstract

This legal essay was written to dispel some confusion in a section of legal fraternity on whether or not
notice to be given to the accused prior to excusing the delay in commencing prosecutions for all
offences subject to period of limitation prescribed in any legislation on the foundation of Latin Maxim
of ‘Audi alteram partem’ (or ‘audiatur et altera pars’). The confusion may be due to the
misunderstanding of the decision on the strength of facts in 5 Justices Bench of Sarah Matthews that
‘notice need not be given to the accused’ to think that Sharadchandra Vinayak Dongre was declared
as bad law, consequently similar rulings. The Author wants to tell that Sharadchandra Vinayak
Dongre was not overruled but still holds the field since there was no impending necessity to do so as
the facts then issues in those two appeals are completely distinct.

Published

2022-01-12

How to Cite

Raman, R. . (2022). DID SARA MATHEWS OVERRULE SHARADCHANDRA VINAYAK. National Journal of Criminal Law, 4(2), 1–7. Retrieved from https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/njcl/article/view/949