Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 57 (1.21 seconds)
Documents citing Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta And Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 16 September, 1968

K. Prabhakar Hegde vs Bank Of Baroda on 19 August, 2025

Similarly in Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta (supra), this Court observed that mere non- examination or defective examination under Section 342 is not a ground for interference unless prejudice is established and, therefore, even in that case, since such plea of prejudice was not raised in previous rounds of litigation and the non-examination under Section 342 did not cause any prejudice, the conviction and sentence was not interfered with looking to the facts in that case. What is important and stands out for the present case is that the second limb of Section 342 of the 1898 Code was interpreted by the three-Judge Bench to be mandatory.
Supreme Court of India Cites 53 - Cited by 0 - D Datta - Full Document

K C Lakshman Rao vs M/O Railways on 30 September, 2020

It may be noticed straightway that this provision is akin to Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. It is now well established that mere non-examination or defective examination under Section 342 of the 1898 Code is not a ground for interference unless prejudice is established, vide, K.C. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin; Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta v. State of W.B. We are similarly of the view that failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(19) of the 1969 Rules does not vitiate the enquiry unless the delinquent officer is able to establish prejudice."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 50 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shri B Premananda Pai S/O Late B Vinayaka ... vs Vijaya Bank on 16 August, 2023

It may be noticed straightway that this provision is akin to Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1898 and Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. It is now well established that mere non-examination or defective examination under Section 342 of the 1898 Code is not a ground for interference unless prejudice is established, vide, K.C. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin; Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta v. State of W.B. We are similarly of the view that failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 8(19) of the 1969 Rules does not vitiate the enquiry unless the delinquent officer is able to establish prejudice. In this case the learned Single Judge of the High Court as well as the learned Judges of the Division Bench found that the appellant was in no way prejudiced by the failure to observe the requirement of Rule 8(19). The appellant cross-examined the witnesses himself, submitted his defence in writing in great detail and argued the case himself at all stages. The appellant was fully alive to the allegations against him and dealt with all aspects of the allegations in his written defence. We do not think that he was in the least prejudiced by the failure of the Enquiry
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - N S Gowda - Full Document

A.P. Jain And Three Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan on 13 September, 1978

15. The Supreme Court has since gone a step further and held in Bibhuti Bhutan Das Gupta Anr. v. State of West Bengal (6) A.I.R. 1959 S.C. 381, as follow, Even in a case where the Magistrate has dispensed with the personal appearance of the accused, a pleader cannot represent the accused, for purposes of Section 342 of the Criminal PG. Except where the accused is a Company or a juridical person and hence cannot be examined personally, in all other cases only the accused can be examined under Section 342 of the Criminal PC. Examination of a pleader is not sufficient compliance with Section 342." See (foot note A).
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sachchida Nand And Anr. vs Pooran Mal And Anr. on 24 March, 1987

With due respect to the learned Judges, they have not correctly appreciated the law laid down in the case of Bibhuti Das Gupta 1969 Cri LJ 654 (SC) (supra) wherein it has been clearly laid down that it is the privilege of the accused to be examined under Section 342(1) of the old code. I have already said earlier that the word 'personally' under Section 313(l)(b) of the new Code makes no difference and even under Section 342(1) of the old Code it was the accused who alone could be examined and his advocate could be no substitute for him. A reading of the proviso to Sub-section (1)(b) of Section 313 of the New Code will show that it empowers the court only in a case where it has dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused to dispense with his examination under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 313 of the New Code. Once the examination is dispensed with no question of examining his counsel will arise. Once the examination as aforesaid of the accused has been dispensed with there will be absolutely no need to examine the counsel and as already stated earlier his counsel can be no substitute for the accused who is to be examined personally under law.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

B. Bhimrajee vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 3 February, 1971

14. Mr. Basu opposing the above contentions, urged that the question of following the procedure of natural justice is one of substance and not of form. Here the accused railway servant was given all opportunity to deny the charge on disclosure of all facts, to examine and cross-examine the witnesses and to show cause against the proposed punishment on acceptance of the findings of the Inquiry Authority by the competent authority. Mr. Basu relied on the decisions in the case Bibhuti Bhusan v. State of West Bengal, in support of his contention that charge as framed did neither prejudge the guilt of the accused nor did it prejudice the enquiry.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Amitananda Roy vs State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 10 February, 1976

She also relied on the case of Bibhuti Bhusan v. State of West Bengal, and Bariam Chemicals v. Company Law Board, . It is not necessary to deal with these cases separately. The principle is now well settled. If mala fide is alleged it should be alleged specifically and with sufficient materials. There should be proper and specific pleading regarding the same. Allegation of mala fide cannot be held established except on clear proof thereof. Mala fide can be of two kinds, malice in fact and malice in law. So far as malice in fact is concerned, this need not be explained. So far as malice in law is concerned, it can be said that merely taking the advice of somebody else or consulting someone else cannot invalidate an order. It would not be improper for the authority concerned to take into consideration the views and wishes of any other person or the Government provided he did not surrender his own judgment and provided that he made the order himself. If the competent authority has applied his mind and acted responsibly in making the order it cannot be said that he has acted mala fide. If he has not acted merely at the behest of or in accordance with the instructions of others, if there is no abdication of power and no absence of application of mind or exercise of his own judgment, an order cannot be challenged on the ground of mala fide merely because some other person has given some advice or because the matter was discussed with someone else or because opinion or guidance of others were taken. For the reasons aforesaid, the application is dismissed and the Rule discharged. All interim orders are vacated. No order as to costs. At the prayer of Mr. Chatterji the operation of the order is stayed till 2 P. M. tomorrow.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of West Bengal And Ors. vs Pulin Krishna Roy Estate (P) Ltd. And ... on 25 August, 1980

(e) Bhibhuti Bhusan Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal reported in (1980) 84 Cal WN 359 where this Bench held that the sanction granted by the State Government under Section 197 of the Cri. P. C. to prosecute the appellant solely upon the version of the complainant, when such sanction was refused twice before, on the same facts, was in violation of the rules of natural justice, having been made without giving the appellant an opportunity to make a representation before sranting the sanction when he had acquired an immunity from prosecution by virtue of refusal of the sanction on two previous occasions although no such hearing was required to be given if sanction had been granted on the first application for the same made by the complainant.
Calcutta High Court Cites 44 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

S.P. Sinha And Ors. vs Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) on 12 February, 1975

A reference may be made to the case of Bibhuti Bhusan Das Gupta v. State of West Bengal wherein Mr. Justice Bachawat delivering the judgment of the Court observed at page 385 that "It is sufficient to say that the language of those sections and the effect of admissions under them are entirely different." These observations were made when their Lordships' attention was drawn to a reported decision where it has been held that at a stage of Sections 242 and 243 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, personal attendance of the accused was not necessary and the pleader representing the accused can be examined under Section 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and can take the Plea under Section 243 of the Code.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 Next