Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Mettupalli China Kondappa (Died) By L. ... vs Ramsetty Ram Row And Anr. on 17 July, 1963

Satish Sadan vs Prithvi Raj And Anr. on 17 March, 1989

(14) The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the initial order made by the S.D.M by which he proceeded to hold some enquiry on the basis of the police report given under rule 23.32 should be treated as a Preliminary order under Section 145(1), Cr.P.C. It is true that that if from the order and the facts appearing on the record it is to be inferred that S.D.M had proceeded to pass a preliminary order under Section 145(1) of the Code then mere omission of the S.D.M. to specifically saying in the order that such an order was being made would not be fatal. in Mettupalli China Kondappa (died) by L.Rs. China Venkatareddy and others v. Ramsetty Ram Row and another', 1964 (1) Criminal Law Journal, 391 no order of any kind was passed by the Magistrate. It was held that proceedings under Section 145 are judicial and it is the duty of the Magistrate functioning as such to discharge the functions himself. In the said case a Clerk of the Magistrate had signed the notice under section 145(1) and it was held that in the absence of any formal order made under Section 145(1) by the Magistrate, the proceedings which started thereafter and culminated in the final order became vitiated.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Peria Mannadha Goundar And Ors. vs Marappa Goundar on 15 March, 1968

In China Kondappa v. Ram Row, the question that arose for consideration was whether the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing the final order under Section 145, Criminal P. C. even though there was no preliminary order passed under Section 145 (1) Criminal P. C. It was held that it was well settled that if there was no preliminary order made at all, the subsequent proceedings culminating in the final order are vitiated and that on the other hand, if there is a preliminary order, however defective it may be, the defect would not be fatal unless it has resulted in prejudice. As observed already, this decision deals with a case where the final orders under Section 145, Criminal P. C. were passed. That was not a case where the objection was taken at the earliest stage, before the final orders were passed,
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Janaki Ramchandran And Ors. vs The State on 23 March, 1988

In the decision reported in Kondappa v. Ram Row, the facts revealed that there had been notice signed by the Head Clerk of the Magistrate and it contained the requisite essentials of an order under S. 145(1) and it had been held in that case the service of such a notice cannot fill up the lacuna of absence of a preliminary order and it was held that the subsequent proceedings culminating in the final order become vitiated.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kuppusamy vs The Tahsildar on 3 March, 2015

In China Kondappa v. Ram Row reported in AIR 1964 AP 168, the question that arose for consideration was whether the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing a final order under Section 145, Criminal P. C. even though there was no preliminary order passed under Section 145 (1) Criminal P. C. It was held that it was well settled that if there was no preliminary order made at all, the subsequent proceedings culminating in the final order are vitiated and that on the other hand, if there is a preliminary order, however defective it may be, the defect would not be fatal, unless it has resulted in prejudice.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

P.Sengodan vs Nagappan on 1 April, 2015

In China Kondappa v. Ram Row reported in AIR 1964 AP 168, the question that arose for consideration was whether the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in passing a final order under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code, even though there was no preliminary order passed under Section 145 (1) Criminal P. C. It was held that it was well settled that if there was no preliminary order made at all, the subsequent proceedings culminating in the final order are vitiated and that on the other hand, if there is a preliminary order, however defective it may be, the defect would not be fatal, unless it has resulted in prejudice.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Smt K. Vanaja, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 27 April, 2022

It is also submitted that while passing the impugned order the mandatory provisions under Section 145 Cr.P.C. are not at all followed. Learned counsel submits that there is no application of mind nor consideration of facts and circumstances. The procedure stipulated under Section 145 Cr.P.C., inviting objections, has also not been followed. Learned counsel relies upon the case law which is annexed to the Writ Petition, including Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v State of U.P. and Others 1 and judgments of the learned single Judges of this Court in Mettupalli China Kondappa (Died) by LRs., and others v Ramsetty Rama Rao and another2, Dr.Ratnam and others v Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional 1 AIR 1985 SC 472 2 AIR 1964 AP 168 3 Officer, R.R.Dist., and Others3 and also Janga Mariamma v Revenue Dvisional Officer and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Macherial, Adilabad District and Others4 to argue that the mandatory procedure under Section 145 Cr.P.C. should be followed and that orders under Section 145 Cr.P.C. cannot be passed when civil suits are pending.
Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1