Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing C.S. Ratanchand vs Multanmull Sesnamull on 22 March, 1963

Takhellambam Tatu Singh vs Sorokhaibam Jugin Singh And Ors. on 19 October, 1968

12. The learned Counsel for the respondents strongly contended that there is concurrent finding of facts by both the Courts below, that in revision this Court should not interfere with a discretionary order and that, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. He relied on a number of rulings, namely, Prayag Dusadh v. Ramjatan Pandey , Mohan Singh v. State AIR 1952 Pepsu 129, Durga Din v. Smt. Rani Udai Kunwar Division Bench, In re Khalandar Saheb , Corporation of Calcutta v. Mulchand Agarwala , Dodda Revanna v. T.V. Narayana Murthy AIR 1957 Mys 43, Chimanlal v. The State , Srimanta Manna v. The State , Raghavan Pillai v. Gourikutty Amma , In re M. Srihari Rao and C. S. Ratanchand v. Multanmull AIR 1964 Mys 117. But as pointed out by me in AIR 1967 Mani 23: 1966 Manipur LJ 65 the High Court may examine the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by an inferior Criminal Court and if it finds that the order is not correct or that it is illegal or improper, then it may exercise any of the powers conferred on the Court of appeal by Section 423, Cr. P.C. The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in respect of an order under Section 145(4) Cr P.C. is the same as in respect of other orders and proceedings of inferior Criminal Courts. Where the Magistrate has not complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 145(4), Cr. P.C., it follows that ex facie the order is improper and that on account of the failure of the Magistrate to take into consideration the affidavits and large portions of material evidence, the natural inference must he that there has been a miscarriage of justice.
Gauhati High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1