Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Harihar Roy vs Emperor on 22 November, 1918

Bhairab Chandra Barua vs Emperor on 7 February, 1919

In the case I have referred to [Harihar Roy v. Emperor 52 Ind. Cas. 595; 23 C. W. N. 131; 22 C. L. J. 383; 20 Cr. L. J. 675.], we held that such an omission was an irregularity only and that it did not go to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That being for, there is no reason why merely on this ground we should interfere in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction and direct that the case be commenced de novo.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Manik Chand Chowdhury And Ors. vs The State on 28 November, 1957

In the third case, Harihar Roy v. King Emperor, 23 Cal WN 481: ILR 40 Cal 810n: (AIR 1919 Cal 383) (H), what was held was that the report in that case, which was a report of a non-cognizable offence was either a police report within the meaning of Section 190 (1) (b) or a complaint and even if it was the latter, omission to examine the police officer on oath was only an irregularity. In none of these cases or indeed in any other case where the matter was considered, did this Court hold, either directly or indirectly, that 'police report', as contemplated by Section 190 (1) (b), was limited to reports made under Section 173. Indeed, the view taken in 23 Cal WN 481: ILR 46 Cal 810n: (AIR 1919 Cal 383) (H), is typical of the view generally taken in this Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 5 - K C Gupta - Full Document

The Public Prosecutor vs Ratnavelu Chetty on 24 February, 1926

Upon this point they probably had in their minds the provision of Section 529(e), Criminal Procedure Code, as that section is quoted in Harihar Roy v. Emperor. Devadoss, J., does not in his judgment consider the effect of this provision. His comment upon this point is "To treat the report of a police officer in a non-cognizable case as a complaint without the formalities required for the initiation of proceedings would lead to gross irregularity, if not injustice". The law only requires that the Magistrate, who takes cognizance of an offence under Section 190, Sub-section (1), Clause (a) or (b) without having jurisdiction, should act in good faith though erroneously, to make his proceedings valid.
Madras High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 20 - Full Document
1