Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.83 seconds)
Documents citing Mohammad Asnad Khan S/O Hussain Bux vs The Crown on 4 December, 1948

B.R. Bathla vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 17 November, 1987

12. The office had raised an objection that as the accused persons had not been made parties to the present revision, the revision was incompetent. Shri Devadas at that stage referred me to a decision in RASHEED MUHAMMAD KHAN AND ANOTHER v. CROWN, AIR 1927 - Lahore 357. It was held in the said case that the question as to whether compensation should be awarded or not was a matter between the Court and the complainant and therefore the accused persons were not necessary parties to the proceedings initiated under Section 250(1) Cr.P.C. Shri Devadas relying on the said case submitted that the present accused persons need not be made parties to the revision.
Karnataka High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Makhan Singh vs State Of Punjab(And Connected Appeals) on 2 September, 1952

In Alam Khan v. The Crown(1), the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court has defined the scope of s. 491 of the Code. Ram Lall, J., who spoke for the majority, stated, after quoting the relevant part of the section "The language of the section places no limit on the class of person or persons who can move a High Court with relation to a person in custody and if the (1) (1947) I.L.R. 28 Lahore 274, 303.
Supreme Court of India Cites 54 - Cited by 137 - Full Document

Ambika Singh vs State on 10 May, 1960

In Mohammad Khan v. The Crown, AIR 1949 Lah 128, Monir C. J. and Muhammad Jan, J. held that a person claiming the right of self defence of property must show that he was in settled possession of it. It was further held that the possession which a trespasser is entitled to defend against a rightful owner must be such settled possession extending over a sufficiently long period as was acquiesced in by the true owner. A casual act of possession would not have the effect of interrupting the possession of the rightful owner, who may re-enter and reinstate himself provided he does not use more force than necessary.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Bhima Mallik vs State Of Orissa on 10 May, 1994

In my view, a statement under Section 164, Cr PC may be recorded not only at the instance of the police, but also at the instance of the accused, or the aggrieved person or at the request of the witness himself. Similar vie v has been expressed in Mohammad Zarfrar Khan v. The Crown : (1951) 52 CrLJ 1423 at P. 1431 : In re CW Cases AIR 1948 Madras 469 State of Orissa v. Amitava Prasad Das : (1979) 47 CLT 298 : and Kunjukutty v. State of Kerala : 1986 Cr LJ 504.
Orissa High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Bhaskar Behera vs State Of Orissa on 12 August, 1999

The aforesaid provision in Chapter XII of the Code under caption "Information to the police and their powers to investigate" is primarily intended to be resorted to by the police in course of investigation into a cognizable offence. Ordinarily the Investigating Officer moves in the matter and produces a witness before the Magistrate for recording his statement. Such a course is adopted when he entertains doubt that the witness may resile or tamper with the statement which he made during investigation. But as the section did not specifically provide that recourse to the said provision can be had only by the police and none else, it came for judicial interpretation whether statement could be recorded at the instance of the informant, accused or at the request of a witness. Lahore High Court in Muhammad Sarfraz Khan v. The Crown : 52 Cri.L.J. 1425, reliance on which was placed by this Court in Amitabh (supra), approved the action of the Magistrate recording the statements of two eye-witnesses Under Section 164 at their instance. To appreciate the view taken by the High Court a few facts may be stated in brief. On 27.12.1949 at about 11.30 p.m. Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, a wealthy Zamindar, accompanied by his chauffeur Muhammad Ramzan and his servant Muhammad Sharif came to the house of Khair Din's daughter Gulzar Begum who carried on the profession of dancing and singing. In course of some altercation Md. Sarfraz filed with a revolver injuring one Yusuf and Saeed Ahmad. An information was lodged to the police whereupon investigation commenced in course of which statements of two injured who were undergoing treatment in the hospital were recorded. In their statements they had stated that it was Sarfraz who fired at them with his revolver. On 19th January injured Yusuf died. Subsequently a new theory was evolved at the instance of the Investigating Officer and some other police personnel that the revolver shots were fired by Ramzan and not Sarfraz. The material witnesses, namely, Khair Din and his daughter Gulzar Begum in their first statement had supported the prosecution case that Md. Sarfraz was the real culprit. They on being re-examined went back upon their earlier statements. Resultantly the Officer-in-charge submitted challan showing Ramzan to be the real culprit. About a week after filing of the challan the aforesaid two material eye-witnesses appeared before a Magistrate, First Class, Lahore, and alleged that the Police was screening the real offender, namely, Md. Sarfraz. Their statements were got recorded by the Magistrate under See. 164. As Saeed Ahmad, the other injured, was not satisfied with the progress of the case in the hands of the Police, he filed a complaint accusing the police of dishonesty and praying that Md. Sarfraz Khan should be punished after due inquiry. Accordingly, an inquiry was held by the Additional District Magistrate, and two sets of witnesses were examined - one, accusing Md. Sarfraz and the other, accusing Ramzan. The Magistrate, therefore, committed Md. Ramzan, Md. Sarfraz and another to the Court of Session on the charge of committing murder of Yusuf and attempting to murder the injured Saeed Ahmed. On the above factual backdrop objection was taken to the admissibility of statement of Gulzar Begum recorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Lahore on the ground that the same was not made in course of police investigation and that if so made, it was recorded by the Magistrate who had no jurisdiction to record it. Repelling such contention the Court observed :
Orissa High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1