Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: prisoners attendance in courts act 1955 schedule 1 the first schedule Page 1 of about 243 results (0.175 seconds)

Bobby Alias Premveer and anr. Vs. State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2000CriLJ4125

..... a perusal of schedules first and second of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 and forms 36 and 37 of the new code (referred to above) indicates that form 37 relates to requirement of a prisoner for giving evidence in the court. ..... before proceeding further, it should be pointed out that form-36 and form 37 are more or less similar to the format indicated in the first and second schedule of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 but no corresponding format or form exists in the old code. ..... such an indication was not provided in the language, used in the first schedule of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955. ..... the format appended as schedules first and second to the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 stand bodily lifted to the new code with some corresponding changes. ..... in this division bench decision of this court, there exists an observation towards the fag end of the judgment in para 15 (penultimate para) to the effect that 'the reliance placed by the learned additional district magistrate, budaun, on the provisions of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 was also misconceived. ..... the legislature being the author of the laws is fully aware of the inapplicability of the provisions in the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955, came to enact the provisions of sections 267 to 271 in the new code and introduced a parallel new chapter xvi-a of the civil procedure code. .....

Gaurav Goel Vs. State of Karnataka, rep. by its Principal Secretary, D ...

Court : Karnataka

..... so also it is beneficial to note the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 { prisoners actfor short}, which reads thus: 3. ..... - (1) any civil or criminal court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it make an order in the form set forth in the first schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison: provided that no civil court shall make an order under this sub-section, in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the state in which the court is held. ..... (3) no order made under this section by a civil court which is subordinate to a district judge shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district judge; and no order made under this section by a criminal court which is inferior to the court of a magistrate of the first class shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district magistrate to whom that court is subordinate or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such court is situate. ..... (2) any criminal court may, if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the second schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison. .....

Pramod Kumar S/O Ramesh Chandra Vs. the State of U.P.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 1991CriLJ1063

..... thus, after the enactment of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955, civil or criminal courts could make an order in the forms set-forth in the schedules directing the officer-in-charge of the prison concerned to produce a prisoner before it for answering a charge or giving evidence. ..... section 10 of this act repealed part ix of the prisoners act, 1900 and first and second schedules of the said act. ..... in the instant case, if the applicant had been transferred to agra in compliance of the requisition or the first remand order and the agra magistrate had remanded him to judicial custody in the agra crime case, then alone the applicant could be said to be in the' custody of agra case. ..... not only that even if the first remand order was made by the court having no jurisdiction, the accused should have been produced before the competent magistrate, but if he was not so produced, the first remand would become meaningless. ..... in compliance of-the first remand order if the accused had been produced before the magistrate having jurisdiction, then he could alone take the accused in custody in the criminal case of his jurisdiction and remand him to judicial custody. .....

Gaurav Goel Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

..... 10 so also it is beneficial to note the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 { prisoners act for short}, which reads thus:3. ..... - (1) any civil or criminal court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it make an order in the form set forth in the first schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison: provided that no civil court shall make an order under this sub-section, in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the state in which the court is held. ..... (3) no order made under this section by a civil court which is subordinate to a district judge shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district judge; and no order made under this section by a criminal court which is inferior to the court of a magistrate of the first class shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district magistrate to whom that court is subordinate or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such court is situate. ..... (2) any criminal court may, if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it, make an order in 11 the form set forth in the second schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison. .....

Ganesh Miskin @ Ganesh @ Ganu Bain Vs. The State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka Dharwad

..... so also it is beneficial to note the provisions of sections 3 and 6 of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 (prisoners act for short), which reads thus: : crl ..... (1) any civil or criminal court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it make an order in the form set forth in the first schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison: provided that no civil court shall make an order under this sub-section, in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the state in which the court is held. ..... no order made under this section by a civil court which is subordinate to a district judge shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district judge; and no order made under this section by a criminal court which is inferior to the court of a magistrate of the first class shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district magistrate is subordinate or within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such court is situate. ..... any criminal court may, if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the second schedule, directed to the officer-in-charge of the prison. ..... if during the investigation his complicity in more serious offences during the same occurrence is disclosed that does not authorize the police to ask for police custody for a further period after the expiry of the first fifteen days .....

State of Rajasthan Vs. Santosh Yadav

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2005CriLJ1830; RLW2005(1)Raj538; 2005(2)WLC1

..... the high court observed that the forms 36 and 37 of crpc which correspond in the first schedule and second schedule respectively of 1955 act for some notable changes, where the material change was that form 37 deals with an accused who is in prison requiring for evidence and form 36 deals with an accused who is in prison requiring for answering to charge. ..... section 267 crpc corresponds to section 3 of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 (for short '1955 act') and sub-section (4) of section 3 of 1955 act has not been included in section 267 crpc as it refers exclusively to civil court. ..... :-'under section 267 crpc the production warrant for attendance of prisoner in some case can be issued only for purposes of answering the charge of an offence, or attending any proceedings against him or for examining such prisoners as a witness in the court and it cannot be issued to require attendance of a prisoner in custody for purpose of investigation in the other case registered against him. ..... following question has been referred to us for adjudication:-'whether production warrant requiring attendance of a prisoner lodged in judicial custody in one case can be issued under section 267 crpc for the purpose of investigation in another case and whether the expression 'other proceeding' and 'for the purpose of any proceedings' used in section 267 and 267(1)(a) respectively would include 'investigation' as defined in section 2(h) crpc 2. .....

Noorunissa Begum and Another Vs. District Collector, Khammam and Other ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2001CriLJ3857

..... 1973 home (prisons.b) department dated 12th december, 1977 titled as andhra pradesh prisoners (attendance in courts) rules, 1977 issued under the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955.11. ..... court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the first schedule, direct the officer in-charge of the prison; provided that no civil court shall make an order under this rule in respect of a person confined in a prison situated outside the state, that if the order is passed by a civil court, which is subordinate to a district judge shall have effect unless it is countersigned by the district judge and no order made under this rule by a criminal court which is inferior to the court of a first ..... class magistrate shall have effect unless it is countersigned by thedistrict magistrate to whom that court is subordinate or within the local .....

Kanu Sanyal Vs. District Magistrate, Darjeeling and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1974SC510; 1974CriLJ465; (1974)4SCC141; [1974]3SCR279

..... now the legality of this detention is challenged on the ground that by reason of section 6 of the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 the officer in charge of the district jail, darjeeling was bound to abstain from complying with the warrant for production issued by the special magistrate, visakhapatnam and was not entitled to send the petitioner to the court of special magistrate, visakhapatnam in compliance with such warrant for production. ..... sub-section (1) of section 3 provides that any civil or criminal court may, if it thinks that the evidence of any person confined in any prison is material in any matter pending before it, make an order in the form set forth in the first schedule, directed to the officer in charge of the prison. ..... it is clear from this sub-section as well as the form set out in the first schedule that the order contemplated by this sub-section is an order for production of a person detained in any prison for giving evidence and such an order may be made by a civil court or a criminal court. ..... it says that any criminal court may, if a charge of an offence against a person confined in any prison is made or pending before it make an order in the form set forth in the second schedule directed to the officer in charge of the prison. .....

C. Natesan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1999CriLJ1382

..... the forty first law commission report, in its wisdom, thought the provisions akin to the provisions contained in the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955, should be provided for in the code of criminal procedure itself and thus sections 267, 268 and 269 of the code have been brought into the code itself in the year 1973. ..... further recommended that the provisions of clauses (c), (d) and (e) relating to production of prisoners in court for various purposes should be omitted and more detailed provisions securing the attendance of prisoners in criminal courts on the lines of those contained in the prisoners (attendance in courts) act, 1955 should be included in this chapter. ..... there is no other form prescribed in the schedule to the criminal procedure code under section 267 empowering the magistrate to issue the warrants compelling the attendance of the person from another jail in order to answer a charge in investigation.the law commission in its 40th and 41st report recommended that this section 491 be omitted and more comprehensive provisions be incorporated under the new code. ..... 36 and 37 of the second schedule to the code of criminal procedure which are used under section 267 cr. p.c. ..... 37 schedule two deals with the production of the person from another jail for the purpose of giving evidence. .....

Beggs (Ap) (Respondent) Vs. Scottish Ministers (Appellants) (Scotland)

Court : House of Lords

..... despite the fact that mr gunn had not been treated differently from the other civil servants whose acts fell to be considered by the court, the first division singled him out and ordered his attendance at the by order hearing "on the basis that he is responsible for the failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that the respondents' undertaking was complied with": 2005 1 sc 342, 359, para 52. ..... i should like to add a few observations on the question whether the first division erred in law when on 11 march 2005 they ordered mr tony cameron, chief executive, scottish prison service, and mr ian d f gunn, governor of h m prison, peterhead, to attend when the case called by order on 15 march 2005. ..... it appears that he was scheduled as an interested party because he was the governor of the prison where, despite the ministers' undertaking of 5 september 2003, the system in place was such that the officer wrongly opened the letter from the commissioner to the respondent on 26 november 2004 and the respondent's subsequent complaints were rejected in terms which the ministers admitted were unacceptable. ..... as the court had already recorded, 2005 1 sc 342, 348-349, para 16, the ministers did not dispute that such a breach of an undertaking could constitute a contempt of court: graham v robert younger ltd 1955 jc 28. .....