Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 144 (3.63 seconds)
Documents citing The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Mubarak Ali on 3 February, 1959

State vs . Mubarak Ali on 7 August, 2018

''18. It is repeatedly laid down by this Court that in such cases it should be shown by the police that   sincere   efforts   have   been   made   to   join independent witnesses. In the present case, it is evident   that   no   such   sincere   efforts   have   been made, particularly when we find that shops were open   and   one   or   two   shop­keepers   could   have been   persuaded   to   join   the   raiding   party   to witness   the   recovery   being   made   from   the appellant.   In   case   any   of   the   shopkeepers   had declined to join the raiding party, the police could have   later   on   taken   legal   action   against   such shopkeepers   because   they   could   not   have escaped   the   rigours   of   law   while   declining   to perform   their   legal   duty   to   assist   the   police   in investigation   as   a   citizen,   which   is   an   offence under the IPC''.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.K.Sreekumar vs State Of Kerala on 9 July, 2024

40. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the expression "cognizance" cannot be construed as encompassing the stage of investigation under the scheme of the P.C Act and the Cr.P.C. The learned Amicus Curiae also submitted that if the expression "cognizance" is construed as encompassing the stage of investigation, the non-compliance with the mandatory safeguard extended by the P.C Act at the stage of investigation would necessarily vitiate the trial. The learned Amicus Curiae, referring to the proposition laid down by the Supreme Court in H.N.Rishbud and Another v. State of Delhi 104, State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali 105 and A.R. Anthulay v R.S. Nayak106, submitted that non- compliance with the mandatory safeguard extended by 104 AIR 1955 SC 196 105 AIR 1959 SC 707 106 (1984) 2 SCC 500 Crl.M.C. NO. 4677 of 2022 45 the PC Act, would not vitiate the stage of cognizance and trial.
Kerala High Court Cites 81 - Cited by 0 - K Babu - Full Document

Muni Lal vs Delhi Administration on 30 March, 1971

said decision cannot apply and the present case will be governed by the decision in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali(1). (1). But we make it clear that the above discussion has been made by us on the assumption that there has been an irregularity committed in the investigation in the case before us' But as we will presently show in the discussion to follow there is no such irregularity or illegality in the investigation as contended on behalf of the appellant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 20 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Union Of India Etc., Rep.Thr.Supdt.Of ... vs T. Nathamuni on 1 December, 2014

“15. Although laying the trap was part of the investigation and it had been done by a Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, cannot on that ground be held that the sanction was invalid or that the conviction ought not to be maintained on that ground. It has been emphasised in a number of decisions of this Court that to set aside a conviction it must be shown that there has been miscarriage of justice as a result of an irregular investigation. The observations in State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali, 1959 Supp 2 SCR 201 at pp 210 and 211, to the effect that when the Magistrate without applying his mind only mechanically issues the order giving permission the investigation is tainted cannot help the appellant before us.”
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

Ashok Kumar Jain vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 May, 2011

32. It is relevant to note that the petitioners had not challenged the order-taking cognizance at the earliest possible opportunity. In this view of the matter, even if it is assumed that the investigation was, in any manner, defective, the order taking cognizance and the consequent proceedings cannot be quashed as no failure of justice had occasioned thereby. For this, reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Munna Lal v. State of U.P. AIR 1964 SC 28 wherein the view taken in Mubarak Ali's case (above) was distinguished.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shatrughna Shravan Kamble vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 31 October, 2002

16. Mr. Gupte appearing for the Respondent No. 4 - accused contended that the petitioner complainant kept quiet after he received reply from the Dy. S. P. on 7th March 2000, though nothing prevented him from applying to the trial Court for getting the offence investigated by Dy. S, P. instead of waiting till the prosecution was quashed and the accused discharged and, therefore, the impugned order of discharge should not be set aside by this Court. He submitted that if the petitioner wants, he can file a private complaint in the trial Court. We find no substance in the said argument nor any logic. The complainant, after learning about the judgment of this Court, addressed a letter to the Dy. S. P. who, instead of taking appropriate steps by applying to the trial Court for curing the defect, raised his hands stating that the charge-sheet having been filed the case is sub judice and he could not do anything in the matter. As observed earlier in Mubarak All's case the Supreme Court had upheld the order of the High Court directing reinvestigation of the case by the competent officer when the Court was moved before the charge was framed or cognizance was taken by the trial Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - S S Parkar - Full Document

Union Of India Etc., Rep.Thr.Supdt.Of ... vs T. Nathamuni on 1 December, 2014

"15. Although laying the trap was part of the investigation and it had been done by a Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, cannot on that ground be held that the sanction was invalid or that the conviction ought not to be maintained on that ground. It has been emphasised in a number of decisions of this Court that to set aside a conviction it must be shown that there has been miscarriage of justice as a result of an irregular investigation. The observations in State of M.P. v. Mubarak Ali, 1959 Supp 2 SCR 201 at pp 210 and 211, to the effect that when the Magistrate without applying his mind only mechanically issues the order giving permission the investigation is tainted cannot help the appellant before us."
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 16 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document

S. N. Bose vs State Of Bihar on 26 March, 1968

cases have to be investigated by officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendents. For that reason it was provided that' in such circumstances the permission of a. magistrate of the first class should be obtained. This Court has laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali(') that the statutory safeguards under S. 5A must strictly be complied with for they are. conceived in public interest and were provided as a guarantee against frivolous and vexatious proceedings. A magistrate, can-not surrender his discretion to a police officer but must exercise it having regard to the relevant material made available to him at the stage of granting permission. He must also be satisfied that there is reason owing to exigencies of the administrative convenience to entrust a subordinate officer with the investigAtion. It is further observed therein that it is desirable that the order giving the permission should ordinarily on the face of it disclose the reasons for giving permission. The order giving permission under s. 5A in this case does not give any reason. On the application submitted by PW 17 the learned magistrate merely ordered "Permission granted". PW 17 did not mention in his application any- special reason for permitting him to investigate the case unless we consider the statement in the application "Today is the date fixed for issuing the fit certificate: after receiving a bribe money of Rs. 5 from him" as impliedly a ground in, support of his application. It is surprising that even after this Court pointed out the- significance of s. 5A in several decisions there 'are still some magistrates and police officers who continue to act in a casual manner. It is obvious that they are ignorant of the decisions of this Court. But the legality of the investigation held in this case does not appear to have been challenged in the trial court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 42 - K S Hegde - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next