Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 33 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing M.R. Venkataraman vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr. on 27 March, 1950

Mayer Simon Parur vs Advocate General Of Kerala And Ors. on 1 July, 1974

23. In the light of the above principles, I think that save in extreme cases, such, for instance, as where this Court is able to find that there has been no application of mind, or no exercise of discretion at all by the Advocate-General, there would be no ground for interference under Article 226. That principle is emphasised in AIR 1972 SC 2083, and in the Bombay Police Commr.'s case AIR 1952 SC 16.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 27 - V B Eradi - Full Document

K. Ramakrishnan And Anr. vs State Of Kerala And Ors. on 12 July, 1999

Accordingly it could not be said that the police were failing in their duty, and an order of mandamus was refused R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner ex p. Blackburn No. 3, (1973) 1 QB 241. It was again made clear that if the police were carrying out their duty to enforce the law, the court would not interfere with their discretion; but that the court would do so in the extreme case where it was shown that they were neglecting their duty. Exactly that is the factual situation here.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

V.S. Krishnan And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 25 May, 2000

31. Investigation of crime including arrest of accused being exclusively in the field of the executive, the Court will be loath to interfere with the discretion vested in the Police Officer and will rather act with restraint and circumspection when approached at the threshold of investigation in that the arrest of an accused may lead to discovery of valuable materials. Lord Denning, in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, 1968(1) All. E.R. 763, has observed thus :
Allahabad High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. U.N. Biswas vs Union Of India & Ors. on 29 April, 1998

In R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner, reported in (1968) 1 All ER 763, (Court of Appeal) Lord Denning M.R. said in connection with the office of the Commissioner of Police that "I have no hesitation, however, in holding that like every constable in the land, he should be, and is, independent of the executive. He is not subject to any order of the Secretary of State save that under the Police Act, 1964, the Secretary of State can call on him to give a report or to retire in the Interest of efficiency. I hold it to be the duty of every Commissioner of Police, as it is of every Chief Constable, to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so as to post his men that the crimes may be detected and that an honest citizen may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or no suspected persons are to be prosecuted and, if need be, bring the prosecution or see that it is brought; but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone, save of the law itself". Accordingly, in such matter of investigation and arrest, an investigating officer is not answerable to any one but except that he is the servant of law and not a servant of anyone else.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bhawani Sahai vs Syed Naqui Imam And Anr. on 8 March, 1956

32. Two other cases also were referred to by the learned Advocate-General in support of his argument, namely, R. v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner; Ex parte Parker, 1953-2 All ER 717 (P) and Ex parte Fry, 1954-2 All ER 118 (Q). In the first case, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police had revoked the licence of a cab driver, because he was satisfied that he was not a fit person to hold a licence.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rayapati Audemma vs Pothineni Narasimham on 11 July, 1969

view of these clear observations of their Lordships with regard to the scope and ambit of the inherent powers of the court under Section 151, Civil P. C. we are clearly of the opinion that in order to do justice between the parties or to prevent the abuse of process of the court, the civil courts have ample jurisdiction to give directions to the police authorities to render aid to the aggrieved parties with regard to the implementation of the orders of Court or the exercise of the rights created under orders of court. That the police authorities owe a legal duty to the public to enforce the law is clear from a decision of the Court of Appeal, reported in R. v. Metropolitan Police Commr. (1968) 1 All ER 763, where Lord Debning, M. R. observed at page 769 as follows:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 8 - Cited by 42 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next