Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 137 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Bindeshwari Prasad Singh vs Kali Singh on 28 July, 1975

Om Gayatri And Co. And Ors. vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr. on 20 October, 2005

After referring to the earlier judgment in Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh it is held that the learned Magistrate had absolutely no jurisdiction to recall the order of dismissing the complaint. The remedy of the respondent was to move the Sessions Judge or the High Court in revision. The point whether an appeal or revision lies against the order of acquittal passed under Section 256(1) Cr. P. C. was not before the Court and was not decided by the Court in this ruling. This judgment therefore is not an authority on the point whether a revision or appeal lies against an order of acquittal passed under Section 256(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Bombay High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sivadasan vs Harish on 28 October, 2016

Crl.M.C.No.2496 Of 2017 complaint, he does not have any implicit and inherent power to restore such a complaint and that the only remedy of a person, who is aggrieved by such a dismissal of the complaint, is to file a revision in terms of the provision of the Code. It is placing reliance on the above said judgments of the Apex Court in Maj. Genl. A.S.Gaauraya's case (supra), reported in AIR 1986 SC 1440, which in turn was based on Bindeshwari Prasad Singh's case (supra), reported in AIR 1977 SC 2432, that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned Anx-B order herein holding that the impugned order of acquittal passed by the learned Magistrate in this case is also amenable for revision. The said view taken by the Sessions Court in the revisional jurisdiction is patently untenable and unsustainable.
Kerala High Court Cites 61 - Cited by 0 - A Thomas - Full Document

Bino Yadav @ Bindeshwari Yadav vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 23 January, 2009

In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh (supra) the Apex Court held that there is no provision in Cr.P.C. empowering the learned Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him. Inherent power under section 561(a) (Old Code) conforming to section 482 (new Code) is vested with High Court only, unlike section 151 C.P.C. which is available both to subordinate courts as well.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - S P Singh - Full Document

K.L. Venkateswar Rao vs State Of A.P. And Anr. on 14 October, 2003

In view of the law declared by the Apex Court as referred to above, I hold that the Magistrate committed patent illegality in setting aside the dismissal order dated 21.8.97 dismissing the private complaints and acquitting the accused and in restoring CC No. 851/96 and CC No. 901/96 to its file, as the Magistrate will not have any inherent jurisdiction to review or recall the said order. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. Point No. 1 is accordingly answered.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 22 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Habu vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1986

Reliance was then placed on Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, AIR 1977 SC 2432. In this case their Lordships of the Supreme Court have made a distinction between the jurisdiction vested in the subordinate Courts and in the High Court. It has been held that "there is no provision in Code of Criminal Procedure empowering a Magistrate to review or recall a judicial order passed by him. Inherent powers under Section 561-A are only given to High Court and unlike Section 151, C.P.C. subordinate Criminal Courts have no inherent powers".
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 66 - Cited by 63 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next