Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 June, 1983

Latesh Kumar Ganeshbhai Patel And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 24 March, 2017

Though, there is no specific prayer made in that behalf, it was contended that when the allegation was of commission of a non-cognizable offence, in exercise of the powers under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the CrPC, the Applicants could not have been arrested. Therefore, the arrest is illegal. We may note here that on 4 th March 2016, the Police custody remand was granted by the learned Magistrate for a period of 14 days. As far as the applicability of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 41 of the CrPC is concerned, reliance was placed by the Applicants on a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar v. State of Maharashtra1.
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - A Oka - Full Document

State Of Maharashtra vs Dharmendra Ambar Mohite on 10 September, 1998

In this respect, Smt. Deshpande, Additional Public Prosecutor, herself has fairly put before us, the ruling of the Bombay High Court, in the case of Avinash Madhukar Mukhedkar v. The State of Maharashtra, . In that case, the petitioner was prosecuted for offence punishable under section 124 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, by following the same procedure as obtaining in the present matter. After considering the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Bombay Police Act, 1951, and the various judgments, the proceedings against the petitioner, in the said matter, was quashed. We respectfully agree with the views expressed in the said judgment. We also appreciate the fairness shown by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Smt. Deshpande, in bringing to our notice the above quoted ruling.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - B B Vagyani - Full Document

Shivanand Giridhar Naik vs The Senior Inspector Of Police And Anr. on 19 June, 2000

5. Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lays down that no Police Officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate, having power to try such case or commit the case for trial. Since the alleged offence committed by the petitioner under Section 145 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is a non-cognizable offence, the Police machinery had no authority to investigate into this offence, and therefore, the police ought to have obtained the permission or order from the Magistrate having power to try the said offence. This being the position, the entire investigation carried out and the charge-sheet filed by the police was without any authority or jurisdiction and therefore, the prosecution initiated against the petitioner is required to be set-aside. Reference can be conveniently made to the decision of this Court in Avinash v. State of Maharashtra 1983 Cri LJ 1833, wherein, it has been held that the investigation carried out by the police in respect of non-cognizable offence, without permission obtained from the concerned Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, is illegal, and therefore, liable to be quashed.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - P Upasani - Full Document
1