Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Emperor vs Vishvanath Vishnu Joshi on 20 June, 1919

Muruvan And Ors. vs Ramabadra Naidu on 3 January, 1957

7a. See also for similar views Sir John Woodroffe's Criminal Procedure in India (Thacker Spink and Co.) (1926) citing ILR 29 Mad 517 CA) and B. B. Mitra's Code of Criminal Procedure, Twelfth Edition (1954) Vol. II a: (t p. 1576 citing ILR 46 Bom 58 AIR 1922 Bom 191) (B); S. Ranganadhiyar's Code of Criminal Procedure, Seventh Edition (1954) Part II at p. 1513; "The word offence in Section 4 (1) (o) includes an act of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act and a person against whom an order is made under Section 22 of the said Act is made a person convicted on A trial" (See ILR 46 Bom 58 : AIR 1922 Bom 19,1 {B); ILR 27 Cal 992 (N); Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh ILR 34 Cal 926 (O); Emperor v. Vishvanath Vishnu ILR 44 Bom 42 : AIR 1920 Bom 85 (1) (P) in this connection.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Muruvan And Ors. vs Ramabadra Naidu on 3 January, 1957

7a. See also for similar views Sir Jolin Wood-coffe's Criminal Procedure in India (Thacker Spink and Co.) (1926) citing ILR 29 Mad 517 (A) and B. B. Mitra's Code of Criminal Procedure, Twelfth Edition, (1954) Vol. II at p. 1576 citing ILR 46 Bom 58: (AIR 1922 Bom 19,1) (B); S. Ranganadhiyar's Code of Criminal Procedure, Seventh Edition, (1954) Part II at p. 1513; "The word offence in Section 4 (1) (o) includes an act of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act and a person against whom an order is made under Section 22 of the said Act is made a person convicted on a trial" (See ILR 46 Bom 58: (AIR 1922 Bom 19,1) (B); ILR 27 Cal 992 (N); Budhan Mahto v. Issur Singh, ILR 34 Cal 926 (O); Emperor v. Vishvanath Vishnu, ILR 44 Bom 42: (AIR 1920 Bom 85 (1)) (P) in this connection.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Harihar Ojha vs Laxmi Jena And Anr. on 20 November, 1957

This later Calcutta decision has been followed in Emperor v. Viswanath Vishnu ILR 44 Bom 42: (AIR 1920 Bom 85(1)) and in Deena Dayalu v. Ratna Padayachi ILR 50 Mad 841: (AIR 1927 Mad 396). Thus there is no doubt that an act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, will also amount to an "offence" and the Subdivisional Magistrate has power to take cognizance of the same and transfer it to another Magistrate subordinate to him, for disposal.
Orissa High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1