Sikkim Court July 1982 Judgments
Chandra Bahadur Tamang Vs. Sundermaya Tamang
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jul-22-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ323
A.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This is a revisional application by the petitioner against the order passed against him by the learned Sessions Judge directing him to make monthly allowances for the maintenance of his wife, the respondent No, 1, and his son, the respondent No. 2, on an application filed by them under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, that being the Code which is still applicable in Sikkim subject to some exceptions and modifications.2. The impugned order having been passed on 25-2-81 and the present revisional application having been filed on 8-9-81, the first question that arises for consideration is whether the present revision is barred by time. The Law of Limitation in force in Sikkim, like the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (now repealed and replaced by the Limitation Act of 1063), does not prescribe any period of limitation for any revisional application, civil or criminal. But in Kinzang Dahdul V. Ransul Kharga 1978 Cri LJ 1569 at pp. 1572-1573 it has b...
Tag this Judgment!Ghimiray Bhutia Vs. Wangey Lepcha and anr.
Court: Sikkim
Decided on: Jul-07-1982
Reported in: 1983CriLJ625
ORDERA.M. Bhattacharjee, J.1. This application seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution but has been pressed and argued as a criminal revisional application as well.2. The accused-applicant has filed this application challenging the order passed by the Court of Session in exercise of its revisional powers under Section 436 of the Cri. P. C. 1898 and there can be no doubt that under that Code, which is still the law in force in Sikkim relating t0 Criminal Procedure, a revisional application against such an order to the High Court is permissible. Under the new Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973, which has not vet been extended to this State of Sikkim, any further revision to the High Court against any order passed by the Court of Session in revision is barred under Section 397 (3), which has made such an order by the Court of Session final and no longer assailable by any further revisional application to the High Court. And in s...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›