Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Vali And Ors. vs Vali Mohd. And Ors. on 20 March, 1979

Dr G Madegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2020

22. The counsel would also contend that in order to maintain a criminal petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C., there is no scope to quash the same and the order impugned is revisable order under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. In support of his contention he relied upon the judgment in the matter of Vali & Ors., vs. Vali Mohd. & Ors., repor ted in 1979 WLN 120 and also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Janata Dal vs. H.C.Chowdhary & Ors., repor ted in (1992) 4 SCC 305, wherein a discussion was made with regard to exercising the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and that the statute provides revisional powers provided under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. This Court cannot invoke section 482 of Cr.P.C. and also the writ jurisdiction to question the order of accepting the B report. The very 26 invoking section 482 of Cr.P.C. is erroneous and hence the very writ petition is not maintainable.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

B.B. Mohanti vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 8 February, 2008

He may remain present either in person or through a counsel or agent with a view to be informed of what is going on. In the case of Vali and Ors. v. Vali Mohd. and Ors. reported in WLN 1979 page 120 a single bench of this Court while considering the provisions of Section 398 of the Code observed that when the learned Magistrate dismissed the protest petition, it cannot be said that the petitioners were discharged. It was further observed that it was not necessary for the Additional Sessions Judge to have afforded opportunity of showing cause to the petitioners as envisaged by Section 398 of the Code.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 25 - Cited by 4 - J R Goyal - Full Document
1