Sikkim Court November 1979 Judgments
Sambunath Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Nov-21-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ785
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. I have heard Mr. D. C. Roy, the learned Advocate appearing for the accused-petitioner, and the learned Advocate-General, appearing for the State, and I am satisfied that the impugned order of the learned Sessions Judge, whereby he has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, must be set aside.2. The petitioner along with two other persons is being prosecuted for offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the I.P.C. on the allegation that they kidnapped and committed rape on a minor girl. The petitioner was arrested on 27-3-1979 and was released on bail by the learned District Magistrate by his order dated 1-5-1979, wherein the District Magistrate observed that from the perusal of the papers and considering the circumstances', he did not find 'any justification for detaining the accused any further.' There is a presumption, as pointed out by the Rajasthan High Court in Newad Ram v. Kishan , that an order made by a Co...
Tag this Judgment!Sambhunath Bhattacharjee Vs. State of Sikkim
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Nov-21-1979
Reported in: 1980CriLJ789
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. Having heard Mr. D.C. Roy, the learned Advocate for the accused-petitioner and the learned Advocate General appearing for the State and having examined the records of the case I am satisfied that this revisional applicantion should be allowed.2. The petitioner is one of the three accused persons in a Criminal case under Sections 363, 366 and 376, Indian Penal Code in the Court of the Sessions Judge at Gangtok. In Sikkim the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, with some modifications, is still the law and in accordance with such modifications, the cases triable by the Court of Session are tried according to the procedure for the trial of warrant cases and therefore, after a charge is framed on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is followed by cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses by or on behalf of the accused. In this case, after the close of the prosecution case before charge on 1-9-1979, charges were framed by the learned Sessions...
Tag this Judgment!Gopalji Prasad Vs. State of Sikkim and ors.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Nov-09-1979
Reported in: 1981CriLJ60
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, Actg. C.J.1. The impugned proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Cede clearly goes to show how this well-known section, so frequently resorted to by the people and also by the public authorities, is very often abused by improper and indiscriminate user. But before I proceed to consider and pronounce upon the legality and the propriety of this proceeding in some details, I will have to dispose of some of the preliminary objections to the maintainability of this revisional application raised by and on behalf of the State and the other respondent.2. It has been urged that this revisional application is not maintainable as the impugned order under Section 144. Criminal Procedure Code has already come to an end by efflux of time. If a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code is, as it cannot but be, a judicial proceeding, the order passed therein cannot but attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, if such jurisdiction is invoked ...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›