Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.36 seconds)
Documents citing State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Raghuraj Singh on 2 November, 1966

Jayarama Reddy & Anr vs Revenue Divisional Officer & Land ... on 23 March, 1979

Mr. Sen has placed reliance on Punjab State v. Sardar Atma Singh(5) and State of Rajasthan and others v. Raghuraj Singh(6) to show that where an application is not made to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on the record of a cross-appeal, that appeal will abate, and it will not be permissible for the appellant to claim the benefit of the fact that the legal representative of the deceased respondent had been brought on the record in the cross-appeal filed by him. I have gone through the cases, but they are clearly distinguishable. The respondent in both cases died during the pendency of the firs appeal, and an objection as to abatement was taken during the course of the hearing, so that there was no question of abandoning the objection in either of these cases and it was permissible to apply to the court for the usual consequences which follow for non-compliance with the provisions of order XXII rules 3 and 4 C.P.C. Those decisions cannot therefore be of any help in a case like this.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 45 - P N Shinghal - Full Document

C. Natesan vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors. on 21 December, 1998

Magistrate, Darjeeling and the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in State v. Raghuraj Singh 1970 Cri LJ 78 for this proposition. It may be noticed, that in the said Act, the words "other proceedings" occurring now in Section 267 of the Code were not there. In other words, at the risk of repetition, it may be noticed that the heading of Section 3 of the said Act itself gives a clue to the circumstances contemplated under that section. The heading reads Power of Courts to require appearance of prisoners to give evidence or answer a charge". Therefore when the Legislature applies its mind to bring in the provisions contained in the 1955 Act into the Code of Criminal Procedure, they appear to have in mind situations not covered by the situation provided for in Section 3 of the 1955 Act. Therefore only in that context, they have used the words, "inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code" in the opening sentences of Section 267 of the Code. Section 267 also provides for answering to a charge of an offence or to examine such person as a witness. These two situations would fit in with the words "inquiry, trial" as found in Section 267(1) of the Code. Answering to a charge of an offence or to examine such person as a witness cannot be brought into the words "other proceeding under this Code.
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sri. Shivananjegowda vs R Muralidhar on 15 July, 2022

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, however, counter the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Raghuraj Singh1. Referring to the said judgment, he would point out that the Rajasthan High Court while dealing with an identical issue was of the view that the appeal and cross objection form part of one and the same record and therefore, there is no need for the Registry to assign separate numbers and therefore, the appeal and cross appeal cannot be treated as two separate appeals which would invite the Registry to assign two separate numbers.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1