Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Sreeman Kumara Tirumalraja Bahadur, ... vs Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss Krishna Doss on 30 July, 1906

R.H. Bhutani vs Miss Mani J. Desai & Ors on 23 April, 1968

(2) (1964) 2 Cr,L.J,100 87 relying on Raja of Karvetnagar V. Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss(1), the Mysore High Court observed that law and order being the, concern of the police it is but natural that the Magistrate should either be moved by the police or if moved by a private party, he should call for a police report regarding the likelihood of breach of peace. But the High Court of Madras in the case of Raja of Karvetnagar(1), did not lay down any such proposition but merely sounded a note of caution that in the absence of a police report the statements of an interested party should not be relied on without caution and without corroboration. '-the proposition that the Magistrate before proceeding under s. 145 (1) must, as a rule, call for a police report where he is moved by a private party or that the absence of a police report is a sure indication of the absence of possibility of breach of peace, is not warranted by the clear language of the section which permits the Magistrate to initiate proceedings either on the police report or "on other information". The words "other information" are wide enough to include an application by a private party. The jurisdiction under s. 145 being, no doubt, of an emergency nature, the Magistrate must act with caution but that does not mean that where on an application by one of the parties to the dispute he is satisfied that the requirements of the section are. existent, he cannot initiate proceedings without a police report. The view taken in the aforesaid two decisions unnecessarily and without any warrant from the language of sub-s. (1) limits the- discretion of the Magistrate and renders the words "other information" either superfluous or qualifies them to mean other information verified by the police. In our view, once the Magistrate, having examined the applicant on oath, was satisfied that his application disclosed the existence of the dispute and the likelihood of breach of peace, there was no bar against his acting under s. 145(1).
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 98 - J M Shelat - Full Document

A.Dhaveethu vs The District Collector on 13 April, 2016

A similar opinion has also been expressed in Ganesh Vs. Venkataswara where, (1) (1924) 25 Cr.L.J.1109 (2) (1964) 2 Cr.L.J. 100 relying on Raja of Karvetnagar Vs. Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss, the Mysore High Court observed that law and order being the, concern of the police it is but natural that the Magistrate should either be moved by the police or if moved by a private party, he should call for a police report regarding the likelihood of breach of peace.?
Madras High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Basiruddin Sk. And Ors. vs Rajmamud Sarkar on 5 February, 1963

In this connection reference was made to the cases of Raja of Karvetnagar v. Lodd Govinda Dass Krishna Das, reported in 5 Cri LJ 91 (Mad) and Velu Malavarayan v. Kuppusawmi Pillai reported in 59 Ind Cas 378 : AIR 1920 Mad 233. In the first case the dispute related to various plots and one of the learned judges giving the judgment was of opinion that the Raja had different title to different sets of properties, some he claimed as owner and others as a mortgagee. Unless there was a clear finding as to the nature of possession of the petitioner over these plots, no order could be passed. As I have said, each case will depend upon its own circumstances.
Gauhati High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Palani Goundan vs Kulandaivelu Goundan And Ors. on 28 March, 1922

In Sreeman Kumara Tirumalaraja Bahadur, Rajah of Kravetnagar v. Sowcar Lodd Goviud Doss Krishna Doss (1906) I.L.R. 29 Mad. 561 : 16 M.L.J. 419 Davies and Moore, JJ. held that the Magistrate's refusal to receive evidence gave the Court no option but to declare that the order under Section 545 was passed without jurisdiction, and on that ground they set aside the order. I may observe that in the present case no evidence was taken and no enquiry was held before the so-called final order was made by the Magistrate.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Anoop Lohia & Anr. vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 31 May, 2017

A similar opinion has also been expressed in Ganesh v. Venkataswara [(1964) 2 Cr LJ 100] where, relying on Raja of Karvetnagar v. Sowear Lodd Govind Doss [(1906) ILR 29 Mad 561] the Mysore High Court observed that law and order being the concern of the police it is but natural that the Magistrate should either be moved by the police or if moved by a private party, he should call for a police report regarding the likelihood of breach of peace. But the High Court of Madras in the case of Raja of Karvetnagar [(1906) ILR 29 Mad 561] , did not lay down any such proposition but merely sounded a note of caution that in the absence of a police report the statements of an interested party should not be relied on without caution and without corroboration the proposition that the Magistrate before proceeding under Section 145(1) must, as a rule, call for a police WP(CRL)1968/2015 Page 9 of 15 report where he is moved by a private party or that the absence of a police report is a sure indication of the absence of possibility of breach of peace, is not warranted by the clear language of the section which permits the Magistrate to initiate proceedings either on the police report or "on other information". The words "other information" are wide enough to include an application by a private party. The jurisdiction under Section 145 being, no doubt, of an emergency nature, the Magistrate must act with caution but that does not mean that where on an application by one of the parties to the dispute he is satisfied that the requirements of the section are existent, he cannot initiate proceedings without a police report. The view taken in the aforesaid two decisions unnecessarily and without any warrant from the language of sub-section (1) limits the discretion of the Magistrate and renders the words "other information" either superfluous or qualifies them to mean other information verified by the police. In our view, once the Magistrate, having examined the applicant on oath, was satisfied that his application disclosed the existence of the dispute and the likelihood of breach of peace, there was no bar against his acting under Section 145(1).
Delhi High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document

Sinanan Shukulathi Rowther And Ors. vs Gulam Moideen Rowther Alias Karuppatli ... on 5 April, 1922

4. The only other point that remains to be decided is, whether any question of jurisdiction is involved and whether the exercise of the revisional powers by the High Court is justified. If an order is challenged to be without jurisdiction, that is to say, if it be outside the section, the mere fact of the order purporting to be so passed will not bring it within the section so as to debar the exercise of the power of the High Court to set it aside in revision as null and void and without jurisdiction: see Sreeman Kumar a Tirumalraja Bahadur, Rajah of Karvetnagar v. Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss Krishna Boss 29 M. 561 : 16 M.L.T. 419 : 1 M.L.T. 405 : Cr.L.J. 91, Dyawappa Basgunda Patit, In re 29 Ind. Cas. 66 : 17 Bom.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joymangal Singh And Anr. vs Kanta Gope And Ors. on 30 January, 1923

2. The second ground on which the Rule was granted was, that the allegations of the first party do not show such a dispute as was likely to cause a breach of the peace and the proceeding is, therefore, without jurisdiction. It appears that the Magistrate in this case acted on a petition filed by the first party and that the first party was not examined on oath nor was any Police report called for. Our attention has been drawn to the case of Sreeman Kumara Tirumalraja Bahadur, Raja of Karvetnagar v. Sowcar Lodd Govind Doss Krishha Dass 20 M. 561 : 16 M.L.J. 419 : 1 M.L.T. 405 : 5 Cr. L.J. 91. We agree with what is there said that where there is no Police report the statement of interested parties ought to be received with great caution. But we are unable to hold that, if the Magistrate has reason to believe such a statement, he acts without jurisdiction in taking proceedings under this Section. In the present case when this petition was filed by the first party the Magistrate had already some knowledge of the facts of the case from the previous proceedings between the parties with reference to the same dispute. That being so, we think he may have had good reason to believe the statement that a breach of the peace was probable, and we certainly cannot hold that he acted without jurisdiction in. acting on such belief.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joymangal Singh And Anr. vs Kanta Gope And Ors. on 30 January, 1923

2. The second ground on which the rule was granted was, that the allegations of the first party do not show such a dispute as was likely to cause a breach of the peace and the proceeding, is therefore, without jurisdiction. It appears that the Magistrate in this case acted on a petition filed by the first party, and that the first party was not examined on oath nor was any police report called for. Our attention (has been drawn to the case of Sreeman Kumara Tirumalraja Bahadur Raja of Karvetnagar v. Sowkar Lodd Govind Dass Krishna Dass [1906] 29 Mad. 561. We agree with what is there said that where there is no Police report the statements of interested parties ought to be received with great caution. But we are unable to hold that, if the Magistrate has reason to believe such a statement, he acts, without jurisdiction in taking proceedings under this section. In the present case when this petition was filed by the first party the Magistrate had already some knowledge of the facts of the case from the previous proceedings between the parties with reference to the same dispute. That being so, we think he may have had good reason to believe the statement that a breach of the peace was probable, and we certainly cannot hold that he acted without jurisdiction in acting on such belief.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next