Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (5.23 seconds)
Documents citing Anthony D'Souza vs Radhabai Brij Ratan Mohatta (Mrs.) And ... on 8 November, 1983

Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs Kishore Wadhwani . on 6 September, 2016

In my opinion, his role will have to be limited as under Section 301 Cr.P.C. for the same reasons, as given in Anthony D'Souza's 1 case and keeping in focus the role of the Public Prosecutor. He cannot be allowed to take over the control of prosecution by allowing to address the court directly. Therefore, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Counsel engaged by respondent no. 2 shall act under the directions of the Assistant Public Prosecutor in-charge of the case.” 1 Anthony D’Souza v. Mrs. Radhabai Brij Ratan Mohatta, 1984 (1) BC.R. 157
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 25 - Cited by 36 - D Misra - Full Document

Bishnu Chandra Rajak vs State Of West Bengal & Anr on 4 October, 2024

In my opinion, his role will have to be limited as under Section 301 CrPC for the same reasons, as given in Anthony D'Souza case [Anthony D'Souza v. Radhabai Brij Ratan Mohatta, (1984) 1 Bom CR 157 : 1983 SCC OnLine Bom 257] and keeping in focus the role of the Public Prosecutor. He cannot be allowed to take over the control of prosecution by allowing to address the court directly. ... Therefore, the petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the counsel engaged by Respondent 2 shall act under the directions of the Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case."
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1