Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Periaswami Thevan And Anr. vs Emperor on 18 September, 1934

Thota Ramakrishnayya And Ors. vs The State on 25 November, 1952

Similar views have been expressed by Newsam J. In -- 'Periaswami v. Emperor', 1937 Mad WN 998 (Z7), when so called counter-cases were presented a Magistrate must treat them both as defence cases disguised as prosecution cases and dismiss them both at once or if he is unable to come to that conclusion 'prima facie' he must treat both complaints with equal respect until he is in a position to make a simultaneous order in each case.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Thota Ramakrishnayya And Ors. vs The State on 25 November, 1952

Similar views have been expressed by Newsam J. in - 'Periaswami v. Emperor' 1937 Mad WN 998 (Z7), When so called counter-cases were presented a Magistrate must treat them both as defence cases disguised as prosecution cases and dismiss them both at once or if he is unable to come to that conclusion 'prima facie' he must treat both complaints with equal respect until he is in a position to make a simultaneous order in each case.
Madras High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharma Ram vs Ram Karan And The State on 10 March, 1969

"Any Sessions Judge, on an application made to him in this behalf, may, if he is of opinion that it is expedient for the ends of justice, order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same Sessions division." No limitation is contained in the wordings of the section to suggest that it is only at the stage of inquiry or trial that an application for transfer is tenable. It is correct that AIR 1936 Mad 163 supports the learned counsel for the applicant but the same High Court in 1957 Cri LJ 139 (Mad) has not taken notice of the earlier decision of its own Court. In Section 526-A, however, the words 'inquiry' and 'trial' find place, which the legislature has advisedly not used in Section 528 (1-C), and I am not in favour, therefore, of importing restrictions which the legislature never intended to impose. I respectfully dissent with the view taken in Murugappa's case, AIR 1936 Mad 163 (supra) and follow the one which is contained in 1957 Cri LJ 139 (Mad) (supra). It is not necessary to decide the exact stage of the case before me although some argument is also possible in that direction.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1