Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.53 seconds)
Documents citing Kanhaiyalal And Ors. vs Devi Singh on 24 December, 1960

Laiphrakpam Leiren Singh And Ors. vs Nongthombom Leiren Singh And Ors. on 9 December, 1966

It was further held that Sub-section (9) of Section 145 contemplates such a situation, that Sub-section (9) lays down that the Magistrate, if he thinks fit, at any stage of the proceedings under the section, on the application of either party, issue summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing', that if, on the application of either party to the proceeding the Magistrate can do so, he can do so equally in the ends of justice of his own accord and that Section 540 Cr. P.C. empowers the Magistrate like any other Court to do so. Vide also Kanhaiyalal v. Devi Singh AIR 1961 Madh Pra 302, and Challamuthu Padayachi v. Rajavel , where the case law on the subject was referred to and discussed.
Gauhati High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Abinash Chandra Deb vs Adhir Chandra Nama Sudra And Ors. on 18 March, 1966

He also found that the powers of the Court under Section 540 were not impaired. I am in respectful agreement with the view of the learned Judge in , that the discretion of the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding to issue summons to a witness on the application of the parties to attend or to produce a document is not in any way restricted by the first proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 145. The view in was followed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanhaiyalal v. Devi Singh where it was observed that Sub-section (9) was wider than the first proviso to Sub-section (4) and that there was no such restraint on the Magistrate or on the scope of the examination on oath, if at any stage of the proceeding on the application of either party the Magistrate at his discretion issued summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. The Court expressed its dissent with the view taken in .
Gauhati High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Challamuthu Padayachi And Ors. vs Rajavel on 13 September, 1963

5. In , Sarjoo Prosad, C. J. expressed his view that the first proviso to subsection (4) is merely an enabling provision, of law which entitles the Magistrate to summon and examine any of the persons whose affidavits have been filed on behalf of the parties; but the proviso does not preclude the Magistrate from calling as a witness any other person that he thinks proper to examine. The learned judge observed that it would indeed be surprising if the proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Crl. P. C. was capable of bearing the interpretation which was sought to be placed upon it by the learned counsel that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to examine a person, who had not filed an affidavit as a Court witness. He also found that the powers of the Court Under Section 540 were not impaired. I am in respectful agreement with the view of the learned Judge in , that the discretion of the Magistrate at any stage of the proceeding to issue summons to a witness on the application of the parties to attend or to produce a document is not in any way restricted by the first proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 145. The view in was followed by Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kanhaiyalal v. Devi Singh, where it was observed that Sub-section (9) was wider than the first proviso to Sub-section (4) and that there was no such restraint on the Magistrate or on the scope of the examination on oath, if at any stage of the proceeding on the application of either party the Magistrate at his discretion issued summons to any witness directing him to attend or to produce any document or thing. The Court expressed its dissent with we now taken in .
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1