Court : Guwahati
Decided on : Dec-07-2004
..... making an arrest without warrant to produce the arrested person before a magistrate without unnecessary delay and section 57 echoes clause (2) of article 22 of the constitution of india. there are some other provisions also like sections 53, 54 and 167 which are aimed at affording procedural safeguards to a person arrested by the police, whenever a person dies in custody of the police, section 176 requires the magistrate to hold an enquiry into the cause of death.22. custodial death is perhaps one of the worst crimes in a civilised society ..... and dw-4 asi janbemo.(4) it is clear from the deposition of witnesses that there is no criminal case against lt. tiaba before he was lodged in the lock up nor he was detained in connection with any criminal case.(5) till date no case in respect to custodial death of lt. tiaba has been registered as such no police inquiry is initiated.(6) no mental sickness is established against lt. tiaba.(7) the so-called ..... . chapter v of the criminal procedure code, 1973 deals with the powers or arrest of a person and the safeguards which are required to followed by the police to protect the interest of the arrested person. section 41, cr.p.c confers powers on any police officer to arrest a person under the circumstance specified therein without any order or a warrant of arrest from a magistrate. section 46 provides the method and manner of arrest. under this section no formality is necessary while arresting a person. under section 49. the police is .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-10-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)ARC409; 2005(1)AWC831
V.C. Misra, J.1. Sri S. N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 are present. No one is present on behalf of respondent No. 3--Munni Lal to oppose the writ petition, though Sri S. M. Dayal, learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on his behalf. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3.2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned judgments and orders dated 26.8.1993 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) passed by the XIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 1 and dated 14.8.1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur Nagar--respondent No. 2. Though the petitioner has sought for certain other reliefs in the writ petition, but during the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner has confined himself to the relief No. 1 and pressed the same only.3. The facts of the case in brief-ar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Nov-30-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)KLT343
K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.1. Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) have come up with these appeals aggrieved by the common judgment in W.P.C. No. 27289 of 2003 and O.P. No. 23400 of 2002 quashing all proceedings in C.C. No. 513 of 1995 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Appeals have also been filed by the widow of Maniyeri Madhavan, the complainant.2. Counsel appearing for the CBI Sri. S. Sreekumar submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge has the effect of nullifying the decisions of the Apex Court in Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub Inspector of Police, (1994) 1 SCC 536, Prem Shankar v. CBI, 1998 (2) KLT 103 and K.G. Premshanker v. Inspector General of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87, and the various directions contained therein with regard to the same subject matter.3. Senior Counsel Sri. T.P. Kelu Nambiar, appearing for the respondents in W. A. No. 1979 of 2004 as well as the counsel app...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-20-2004
Reported in : AIR2004SC1851; 2004(2)ALD(Cri)258; (2004)3CALLT55(SC); [2004(4)JCR137(SC)]; JT2004(5)SC157; 2004(1)SCALE641; (2004)4SCC129
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION:1. Applicability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing a proceeding for confiscation of forest-produce etc. under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as amended by the State of West Bengal is in question in these appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 27.6.1996 passed by the Calcutta High Court.BACKGROUND FACTShortly stated the fact of the matter is that the forest-produce belonging to the State and/or the vehicles carrying the same were seized by the Forest Officer. The report of such seizure was made to the authorized officer.2. Except Criminal Appeal No. 453 of 1997 - State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Sujit Kumar Rana, show cause notices issued by the forest authority purported to be issued under the provision of Section 59-B of the Act, as amended by the State of west Bengal or the seizure of the forest-produce of the vehicle carrying the same, came to be quest...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Mar-26-2004
Reported in : (2005)1GLR474
C.K. Buch, J. 1. The petitioners before this Court are accused Nos. 9 and 10 in the Criminal complaint filed by the respondent No.2 Bank, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 114 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioners pray that invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the proceedings initiated by respondent Bank through its officer Shri Bharatkumar Ambalal Panchal, be quashed as the same is bad and unsustainable on the grounds mentioned in paragraph 5 of the memo of petition.2. I have considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Gupta for the petitioners, Mr. A.D. Oza, Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and Mr. B.B. Naik for the complainant Bank.3. It is submitted by Mr. Gupta that they are wrongly dragged into a sensitive litigation, though they were not party to any of the transactions referred to in the complaint filed before the Police. Initially the complaint was filed in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Apr-21-2004
Reported in : AIR2004SC3800; JT2004(Suppl1)SC443; 2004(5)SCALE1; (2004)4SCC714; 2004(3)SLJ175(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.INTRODUCTION:1. A short but interesting question as regard interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the relevant provisions of Legal Remembrancer's Manual relating to appointment and renewal of term of the District Government Counsel is in question in this batch of appeals which arise out of various judgments and orders passed by the Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. Nos. 34064, 19513, 34074, 26613, 40945, 41178, 5665, 41180, 5667 of 1998, 9809 of 1992, 9203 of 1998, 3100, 3102 of 1999 and 6754 of 1998.FACTUAL BACKDROP:2. The State of Uttar Pradesh appoints District Government Counsel (DGC) for civil, criminal and revenue courts in terms of the Legal Remembrancer Manual.3. Appointment of Public Prosecutor is governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The State of Uttar Pradesh, however, amended Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in terms whereof the requirements to consult the High Court for appointment of Public Prosecutions for ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Orissa
Decided on : May-14-2004
Reported in : 2004(I)OLR695
L. Mohapatra, J. 1. This Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order of the Executive Magistrate, Cuttack passed under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure directing the petitioner to shift an industry from the site where it is located at present and the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuttack in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2002 confirming the said order.2. The opposite parties are resident of Manavila under Malgodown P.S. and they filed an application under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for a direction to the present petitioner to remove the nuisance caused due to running of a factory by the petitioner. The case of the opposite parties is that Manavila is a residential area constituting several residential houses. One Bishnu Jain who owned one of the houses has given on rent the said house to the petitioner for using the same as an industry for manufacturing steel furniture and also for fabrication of iron and steel frames. I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Apr-29-2004
Reported in : 2004(3)CHN174
Arunabha Barua, J.1. This revisional application under Sections 401 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of an order passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Basirhat, on the 20th July, 1994 whereby the learned Magistrate issued search warrant for producing the minor children in Court in Case No. M. P. 762A of 1992.2. The matter is short and simple. The petitioner in the instant revision is the husband and the opposite party is his wife. Way back on 20.10.91, their otherwise peaceful marriage showed signs of cracks when pursuant to a quarrel between husband and wife, the wife, that is, Sakila Bibi, the opposite party here, left her husband's house, that is the house of the petitioner here, along with her brother, in the absence of husband. Allegedly, she also took away at that time all the ornaments given to her by her husband together with Rs. 1,000/- in cash and her garments. Her two minor children were left at her husband's house. According to the petitioner-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Decided on : Jan-23-2004
Reported in : 2005(1)MPHT89; 2004(4)MPLJ54
ORDERS.L. Jain, J.1. This order shall govern disposal of this revision as well as Criminal Revision No. 603/99, Krisna Narayan and Anr. v. Kalka Prasad, and Criminal Revision No. 494/99, Kalka Prasad v. Ram Naresh Tiwari and Anr. All the aforesaid revisions under Section 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code arc directed against the order dated 29-1-1999 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Satna in Sessions Trial No, 116/96 whereby an application filed by the respondents of Criminal Revision No. 494/99 under Section 197, Criminal Procedure Code was allowed and charges for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 109 read with Section 302 and 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code were framed against applicants of Criminal Revision Nos. 670/99 and 603/99.2. The facts of the case which led to filing of these revisions are that a complaint under Section 200, Criminal Procedure Code was filed by complainant Kalka Prasad, who is applicant in Criminal Revision No. 494/99, for the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Mar-08-2004
Reported in : 2004(1)ALD(Cri)820
B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order dated 22-12-2003 on the file of the learned III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry, whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition filed by the accused under Section 245 and 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure.2. The petitioners herein are A1 and A2 in C.C. No. 487 of 2002. The said C.C. arise out of the complaint presented by the 1st respondent herein alleging inter alia that the petitioners contravened certain provisions of the Factories Act, whereby rendered themselves punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act. The petitioners-accused filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 9585 of 2003 under Section 245 and 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge on the ground that the complaint filed by the complainant-1st respondent herein is barred by limitation. The learned Magistrate on considering the material on record did not find any merit in plea put forth by...
Tag this Judgment!