Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.58 seconds)
Documents citing Deepak Dwarkadas Patel And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat on 23 March, 1979

Surendrabhai Babubhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 1984

In the case of Deepak Dwarkadas v. State reported in 21 G.L.R. 135 the Court has negatived the contention that after submitting a charge-sheet the investigating officer becomes functus officio and held that an additional charge-sheet could be submitted by a Police Station Officer if and only if there was further investigation in the course of which some further evidence, oral or documentary, was available. The Court further held that Section 173(8) is added to negative such controversy beings raised and to set at rest the earlier controversy that once a charge-sheet was filed, a Police Officer becomes functus officio.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - M B Shah - Full Document

Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) vs State Of Karnataka on 14 February, 1997

5. Sri M. H. Ibrahim, learned High Court Government Pleader, on the other hand, submitted relying upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Deepak Dwarkadas Patel v. State of Gujarat, 1980 Cri LJ 29, that it was not at all necessary that there should be a fresh investigation and discovery of new material for filing an additional charge-sheet in a criminal case and if the very material is misunderstood by the Police Station Officer and if he has received proper light from his superiors, he can certainly file an additional charge-sheet and the Magistrate has got power to take cognizance on the additional charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. In the judgment of the Gujarat High Court, Court was considering about filing of additional charge-sheet. Therefore, while I am unable to accept the submission made by the learned High Court Government Pleader, I am of the view that there is much force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate before whom a report is filed has jurisdiction to take or not to take cognizance of any offence. The Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence and not the offenders. Once he takes cognizance of the offence and if the case is triable by the Sessions Judge and in the course of the trial Sessions Judge comes to the conclusion from the evidence on record that there are other accused persons also involved in committing the offence, for which the charge-sheet has been filed, he has got jurisdiction under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code to add any person as an accused, who has not been named by the Investigating Officer as an accused. Thus power of the Magistrate is restricted when the Magistrate takes cognizance in a case, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. When a charge-sheet is filed by the police in an offence which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, if the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, for which the charge-sheet is filed, he has to commit the matter to the Court of Sessions. When once the matter is committed to the Court of Sessions, the Court of Sessions takes cognizance of the offence or the offences under Section 193, Cr.P.C. When once the Sessions Court takes cognizance of the offence under Section 193, Cr.P.C., any further documents or materials in respect of the offence, for which the Sessions Court has taken cognizance has to he placed before the Sessions Judge, who has taken cognizance. The Investigating Officer has no authority to place any document in respect of the said case before a Magistrate or before any other Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - A M Farooq - Full Document

Babuben W/O. Ramjibhai Satani & 6 vs State Of Gujarat & on 20 April, 2015

17. The investigation of an offence is the field exclusively reserved for the   Police Officers, whose powers in that field are unfettered, so long as the   power to investigate into the cognizable offence is legitimately exercised in   strict compliance with the provisions under Chapter XII of the Code. While   exercising   powers   under   Section   482   of   the   Code,   the   Court   does   not   function  as a Court of appeal or revision.  As noted  above,  the inherent   jurisdiction   under   the   Section,   although   wide,   yet   should   be   exercised   sparingly,   carefully   and   with   caution   and   only   when   such   exercise   is   justified by the tests specifically laid down in the Section itself. It is to be   exercised  ex   debito   justitiae  to   do   real   and   substantial   justice   for   the   administration of which alone courts exist. Authority of the court exists for   advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority   so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It   would be an abuse of process of the court to allow any action which would   result   in   injustice   and   prevent   promotion   of   justice.   In   exercise   of   the   powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that   initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or   Page 2 of 7 R/CR.MA/17731/2014 ORDER quashing  of these proceedings  would  otherwise  serve the ends of justice.   When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the   question   of   fact.   When   a   complaint   is   sought   to   be   quashed,   it   is   permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has   alleged and whether any offence  is made out even if the allegations are   accepted in toto.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

Bachubhai Bhikhabhai vs State on 7 February, 1984

In the case of Deepak Dwarkadas Patel and Anr. v. State of Gujarat 21 G.L.R 135, the police had submitted a charge-sheet against some accused and a number of witnesses were named in the charge-sheet. At the time of framing of the charge the Public Prosecutor orally mentioned before the learned Magistrate that two persons were initially named as accused in the F.I.R. but were cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet. However, in his opinion they were required to be made accused. The matter was adjourned and thereafter the investigating officer submitted an additional charge-sheet seeking to delete the petitioners from the list of witnesses and prayed for their being impleaded as accused. The learned Magistrate had accepted the charge-sheet. These additional accused carried the matter to the High Court and the High Court held that under Clause (8) of Section 173, which was newly added in the Code, the power was reserved for the police station officer to submit an additional charge-sheet. The Court further held that this power of making an additional report was not confined to further investigation and discovery of new material. It was held to be wide power in the form of enabling provision and the police officer does not become functus officio once the charge-sheet was filed. The police officer was held to be competent under Section 173(8) to file an additional charge-sheet. The High Court held that the power of the investigating officer cannot be restricted to recovery or discovery of new material. Thus, this Court has recognised the power of the police authorities to make additional report or reports after the Magistrate has taken cognizance.
Gujarat High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Aamar vs State on 22 July, 2008

6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that after considering relevant facts and decision of the Apex Court as reported in (1) 1980 GLR 1980 in the case of Deepak Dwarkadas Patel and Anr. Vs State of Gujarat (2) 1985 GLH 299 in the case of Surendrabhai Babubhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat (3) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 326 in the case of State of Bihar and Anr. Vs J.A.C. Saidanna and Ors.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S Dave - Full Document
1