State of Mysore Vs. Anantreddy and ors.

State of Mysore vs Anantreddy and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Oct 29, 1965

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/376331

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/376331
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K.S. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 29, 1965
Case Number: Criminal Revn. Case No. 33 of 1965
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA ADVOCATES WELFARE FUND ACT, 1983[K.A. No. 2/1985]. Section 27 (2)(a): [A.S. Bopanna, J] Obligation of the State Government to constitute Karnataka Registered Clerks Welfare Fund Grant is to be made by the State Government Sub-clause (b) of Sub-Section (2) of Section 27 Donation or contribution to the f...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 207-A(4)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

State of Mysore

Respondent

Anantreddy and ors.

Legal References

Acts: Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 207-A(4)
Reported In: AIR1966Mys210; 1966CriLJ932; (1965)2MysLJ786

Excerpt

.....advocates welfare fund act, 1983[k.a. no. 2/1985]. section 27 (2)(a): [a.s. bopanna, j] obligation of the state government to constitute karnataka registered clerks welfare fund grant is to be made by the state government sub-clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 27 donation or contribution to the fund to be made by different bodies like bar council, bar association and advocates or any other person held, when the state government constitutes the welfare fund and notifies the same, at the first instance, what is required to be provided is the grant to be made by the government. it would not be appropriate for the state government to insist on the bar council to indicate the manner in which it would fund the scheme that is to be formulated. that apart, even insofar as the mobilisation of the amounts to constitute the fund, it is for the state government to formulate the rules in the manner the funds are to be mobilised by the bar council and pursuant thereto, the bar council will proceed in accordance with the rules to be notified by the government. constitution of india -- article 226: [a.s. bopanna, j] writ of mandamus writ petition seeking direction to constitute a fund called the karnataka registered welfare clerks, welfare fund held, what requires to be noticed is that similar funds have been notified by the state government of andhra pradesh, state government of kerala and also the state government of tamil nadu. the rules framed by the respective government would indicate the manner in which the funds are to be mobilised and as such, it would be open for the state government to adopt such methods as indicated in the said rules. therefore, when such models of the welfare funds rules. therefore, when such models of the welfare funds rules formulated by the governments are available which indicate the manner in which the state government could mobilise the funds for constituting such a welfare fund, the state government cannot wriggle out of its..........1965 crilj636 deprecated the neglect to examine all the witnesses to the commission of the offence alleged without the bestowal of sufficient thought to the question whether the witnesses not produced by the prosecutor should or not be examined.(6) in the case before us there are no indications that the committing mad bestowed thought to the question whether the case was one which did not fall within the rule prescribing such examination. so, the omission to examine the other witnesses to the commission of the offence alleged, was not proper.(7) but that does not mean that we should, as suggested by mr. jagannatha shetty, say that the order of committal stands vitiated. in our opinion, an order of committal preceded by the examination of only those witnesses produced by the prosecutor without considering the propriety of insistence on the examination of others is not such a serious infirmity in the preliminary enquiry as to vitiate it.(8)the decision in kirpal singh's case, : 1965 crilj636 to which mr. shetty appealed does not make a difference enunciation. the accused in that case failed in their appeal before the supreme court although there was an infirmity in the preliminary enquiry in that case similar to that which exists in the case before us. if the order of committal was illegal in consequence of such omission the appeal would have succeeded on the ground that the trial which was not preceded by a proper order of committal was no trial which was not preceded by a proper order of committal was no trial under cr.p.c.(9) we dismiss this reference.(10) reference dismissed

Full Judgment

Somnath Iyer, J.

(1) This reference has for its source a revision petition which was presented by 31 accused to the District Magistrate, Gulbarga before whom the complaint ventilated was that there was non-compliance with the provisions of S. 207-A(4) of Cr.P.C. by the committing Magistrate. What the committing Magistrate was to examine only one witness to the actual commission of the offence alleged, without insisting upon the production of the other witnesses to the commission of the offence.

(2) It was urged before the District Magistrate that the committing Magistrate was under a statutory duly to examine all the witnesses to the commission of the offence and that the transgression of the statutory duly vitiated the order of commitment.

(3) In this court Mr. Jagannath Setty, the learned Advocate for the accused, depends upon Kirmal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh : 1965 CriLJ636 and Urges that the order of committal should be vacated.

(4) The four principle which emerge from this pronouncement of the Supreme Court are: firstly that the committing Magistrate must needs examine all the witnesses to the commission of the offence alleged whom the prosecution produces secondly that he must consider all the documents referred to in S. 173; thirdly that he should make an application of his judicial mind to the question whether the witnesses to the commission of the offence not produced by the prosecutor should be examined or whether there are any exceptional grounds not to examine them; and fourthly that he should insist upon the examination of those witnesses if there are no reasons for thinking that they need not be examined.

(5) The Supreme Court in Kirpal Singh's case, : 1965 CriLJ636 deprecated the neglect to examine all the witnesses to the commission of the offence alleged without the bestowal of sufficient thought to the question whether the witnesses not produced by the prosecutor should or not be examined.

(6) In the case before us there are no indications that the committing mad bestowed thought to the question whether the case was one which did not fall within the rule prescribing such examination. So, the omission to examine the other witnesses to the commission of the offence alleged, was not proper.

(7) But that does not mean that we should, as suggested by Mr. Jagannatha Shetty, say that the order of committal stands vitiated. In our opinion, an order of committal preceded by the examination of only those witnesses produced by the prosecutor without considering the propriety of insistence on the examination of others is not such a serious infirmity in the preliminary enquiry as to vitiate it.

(8)The decision in Kirpal Singh's case, : 1965 CriLJ636 to which Mr. Shetty appealed does not make a difference enunciation. The accused in that case failed in their appeal before the Supreme Court although there was an infirmity in the preliminary enquiry in that case similar to that which exists in the case before us. If the order of committal was illegal in consequence of such omission the appeal would have succeeded on the ground that the trial which was not preceded by a proper order of committal was no trial which was not preceded by a proper order of committal was no trial under Cr.P.C.

(9) We dismiss this reference.

(10) Reference dismissed

Same Parties State of Mysore vs Anantreddy and ors. Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.S. Somnath Iyer and ;Ahmed Ali Khan, JJ. Acts & Sections Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1898 - Sections 207-A(4)

Criminal