Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Raj Narain And Ors. vs The State on 29 October, 1958

A.H. Satranjiwala vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 August, 1970

Moreover, it was not a judgment on merits. The power under Section 561A, therefore, was rightly exercised. We do not, however, with respect, agree with the observations in that judgment to the effect that the power under Section 561A is not restricted in the manner we have stated above. Mr. Hussain also has drawn our attention to the majority judgment in Raj Narain v. State, where it has been held that all powers1 which are necessary to secure ends of justice existed in the High Court and their existence is recognized by Section 561A of the Criminal Procedure Code. Of course, it has also been laid down by the majority judgment that the inherent powers under Section 561A have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only where such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the section itself. With respect, we are unable to agree with the majority judgment in so far as it construes Section 561A of the Code as conferring on the High Court a wide power for rehearing any matter whenever necessary to secure the ends of justice. We may point out that in the course of his dissenting judgment, Mootham C.J. has held that (p. 317):
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Roshanlal Poddar vs State And Anr. on 9 October, 1974

Krishna Rao, J. shared the opinion of Umamaheswaram J. as to the scope of Section 561-A Criminal P. Code, On the question of review Chandrasekhara Sastry, J. has held in this Bench that the power to review its own judgment is not in any Court and, therefore, such a power can be exercised only if it is conferred by a statute and he is unable to accept the suggestion that, because the Criminal Procedure Code does not specifically confer on the Court power to review its judgment or order, it must be held that the Court has inherent power to review its judgment or order, It appears that the decision of the Allahabad Full Bench in Rajnarayan's case was considered and Chandra Sekhara Sastry, J. says regarding that case, ".... I express my respectful dissent from this view which, in my opinion, is too broadly stated".
Calcutta High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rahmat vs The State on 25 May, 1979

11. Learned Counsel for the applicant has again referred to Raj Narain v. State (supra) wherein it was held that a trial of more offences than permitted by law would not be a case of more misjoinder but it will be a case of trial against law and so vitiated. That case was, however, decided at a time when the provisions about the effect of misjoinder of charges were not incorporated in the Cr. P. C. These were incorporated in the old Cr. P. C. for the first time on 1-1-56 by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 1955 (Act No. 26 of 1955). By that amendment Sub-clause (b) of Section 537 of the old Cr. P. C., was added and it was provided that any error, omission or irregularity in the charge, including any misjoinder of charges would not be a ground for reversing the finding, sentence and order unless there has been a failure of justice.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chatru And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 July, 1974

No case Under Section 141 I.P.C. could thus be made out and he placed reliance on Chakkarange Gowda and Ors. v. State of Mysore , Shambhu Nath Singh and Ors. v. State of Bihar , Raj Narain and Ors. v. State and State v. Ali Hafiz Mia and Ors. AIR 1965 Man 21. While the charge says that the common object of the unlawful assembly consisting of the accused persons consisted in the desire to dispossess Sultan and Gangaram the evidence is that it was the party of the accused which was in possession and Sultan and Gangaram were desirous of excluding them from possession.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Habu vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 December, 1986

"We may also point out that in the Full Bench case of Raj Narain (AIR 1959 All 315) (supra) it was observed in the majority judgment that Section 561-A, did not authorise this Court to rehear a case where the applicant or appellant was not heard due to some fault of his or his counsel Thus the applicant cannot get any assistance even from the majority judgment in Raj Narain's case (supra) which on this point has not been overruled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Thus the applicant in the case on hand will not be entitled to claim rehearing even if we were to hold that the applicant could invoke inherent jurisdiction of this Court reserved under Section 482 Cr. P.C.".
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 66 - Cited by 63 - Full Document

Chitawan And Ors. vs Mahboob Ilahi on 18 December, 1968

32. Not a single ruling has been cited by Sri. Asthana which shows that the decision of the Full Bench in Raj Narain's. case , has either been overruled by a larger Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court. Sitting singly I am bound by the Full Bench decision in Raj Narain's case and it must, therefore, be held that this Court has the inherent power to review its previous judgment in order to secure the ends of justice, I am fortified in my view by a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Raj Karan v. State 1966 All. W. R. (HC) 534 in which it was held as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next