Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 182 (6.57 seconds)
Documents citing Basir-Ul-Huq And Others vs The State Of West ... on 10 April, 1953

C.H. Satyanarayan vs State on 15 March, 2012

13. The second contention of the learned senior counsel is to the effect that Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. puts an embargo on the powers of the prosecuting agency to investigate a non- cognizable offence. It is not in dispute that both the offences under Sections 272/273 IPC are non-cognizable offences, and therefore, the said offences could not have been investigated by the police on account of the registration of the FIR. I am of the view that, the investigation for the aforesaid offence under Sections 272/273 IPC was sought to be camouflaged by the prosecution by adding Section 328 IPC, knowing well that such a cognizable offence against the petitioner is not made out. The Apex Court in case titled Basir-Ul-Huq Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 293 has deprecated such a practice being adopted for the purpose of investigation of a non-cognizable offence. In the said case, it was observed as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - V K Shali - Full Document

S. Nagrajan vs State on 6 March, 2012

16. There is another aspect of the matter which has been shown to be in existence in the instant case that it is the violation of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. which puts an embargo on the powers of the prosecuting agency to investigate a non-cognizable offence. It is not in dispute Crl.M.C.Nos.833, 837, 2647/2001 & 2157/2004 Page 14 of 17 that both the offences under Section 272/273 IPC are non-cognizable offences, and therefore, the said offences could not be investigated by the police on account of the registration of the FIR. But the investigation for the aforesaid offences under Section 272/273 IPC was sought to be camouflaged by adding Section 324 IPC in three of the cases and one for an offence under Section 328 IPC by the prosecution knowing well that such an offence against the petitioner is for a cognizable offence against the petitioner which in all the four cases were not made out. The Apex Court in case titled Basir-Ul-Huq Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 293 has deprecated such a practice being adopted for the purpose of investigation of a non-cognizable offence. The words which are used are as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - V K Shali - Full Document

C.H. Satyanarayan vs State on 6 March, 2012

13. The second contention of the learned senior counsel is to the effect that Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. puts an embargo on the powers of the prosecuting agency to investigate a non- cognizable offence. It is not in dispute that both the offences under Sections 272/273 IPC are non-cognizable offences, and therefore, the said offences could not have been investigated by the police on account of the registration of the FIR. I am of the view that, the investigation for the aforesaid offence under Sections 272/273 IPC was sought to be camouflaged by the prosecution by adding Section 328 IPC, knowing well that such a cognizable offence against the petitioner is not made out. The Apex Court in case titled Basir-Ul-Huq Vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1953 SC 293 has deprecated such a practice being adopted for the purpose of investigation of a non-cognizable offence. In the said case, it was observed as under:-
Delhi High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - V K Shali - Full Document

Ajit D. Padiwal vs State Of Gujarat And 2 on 15 September, 2004

24.23 The ratio of this judgment is to the effect that if the offences are distinct having been committed in the same transaction then for a distinct offence which is not included Under Section 195 Cr.P.C. the court has powers and jurisdiction to take cognizance. This ratio is explained by the Supreme Court with one rider and the rider is in para 14 of the said judgment, which is as under (page 296):
Gujarat High Court Cites 152 - Cited by 13 - D K Trivedi - Full Document

Dr. Cheeran Abraham Varghese vs Maulvi Ab. Hamid on 2 June, 1989

10. The offences which are defined in Section 29 of the Insecticides Act can be taken cognizance of and tried provided Section 31 of the said Act is complied with. Without complying with the provisions of Section 31 of the Insecticides Act, no prosecution for an offence under the Act can be instituted. This is evident from a bare reading of the two provisions of the Insecticides Act i.e. Sections 29 and 31. The question however that falls for consideration is that if any allegation constituting an offence punishable under the Penal Code is levelled which is distinct from the offence mentioned in Section 29, would Section 31 of the Insecticides Act come into play? The answer to this question is provided by Basir-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1953 SC 293 : (1953 Cri LJ 1232) (supra). The only thing which the trial court is to see is that the offences mentioned in the complaint are not devices of camouflage to overcome the effect of Section 31 of the Insecticides Act. Cheating or inducing a person with dishonest intention to part with money, to purchase sub-standard insecticides which has the effect of causing wrongful loss to a person who parts with the money is not an offence grouped Under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act of 1968.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next