https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298510 A charge-sheeted co-accused had no locus standi or legal necessity to be impleaded in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC seeking further investigation against another proposed accused, because even that proposed accused had no right to be heard at that stage. Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 did not apply to such proceedings, as they were not equivalent to an appeal or an application arising from a criminal case within the meaning of that rule. The refusal to implead the co-accused was therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 07 Nov 2021 11:04:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298510 A charge-sheeted co-accused had no locus standi or legal necessity to be impleaded in proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC seeking further investigation against another proposed accused, because even that proposed accused had no right to be heard at that stage. Rule 51 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993 did not apply to such proceedings, as they were not equivalent to an appeal or an application arising from a criminal case within the meaning of that rule. The refusal to implead the co-accused was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 02 Mar 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298510