Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 45 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Matchumari China Venkatareddy And Ors. vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 March, 1993

G.Venugopala Rao vs The Union Of India on 17 February, 2022

6. There is no dispute in relation to the pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner in Crime No.544 of 2020 of II Town Police Station, Khammam. It is substantiated that no charge sheet is filed till date in the said crime. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the legal position laid down in the decisions rendered in Mr. W. Jaihar William's case (1 supra) and Matchumari China Venkatareddy's case (2 supra), relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Telangana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - S Akther - Full Document

Mr.W.Jaihar William vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 27 June, 2014

10.For the same proposition of law, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1994 Cri.L.J.257 [Mathumari China Venkatareddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh], wherein it has been held that until the charge-sheet has been filed, a Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence and that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence and direct the issue of process only on receipt of a police report and that till that stage is reached, he is said to be acting only as a Magistrate controlling the investigation made by the police. It has been further held in the said judgment as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 127 - R Subbiah - Full Document

Gurpal Singh & Anr vs State Of Punjab on 23 April, 2016

Following the judgment of Apex Court in Satya Narain Musadi's case (supra) which has been followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Matchumari China's case (supra), and by Calcutta High Court in Raghubirsaran Jain and another Vs. State and another, 1995 Crl.LJ 4117, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein should have been released, in peculiar circumstances of this case, as indefeasible right had accrued to them under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. on presentation of incomplete challan without the report of chemical examiner and the prosecution agency having not availed the benefit of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act within a period of 180 days. In a case under the NDPS Act, a right of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. of an accused can be defeated by the prosecution agency by availing the remedy under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act subject to the fulfillment of the statutory requirement of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act which is to be considered in each case on individual merits by the concerned trial Court/ Special Judge. The right under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot be defeated by merely filing an incomplete challan. It is pertinent to observe here that all observations made in this judgment are in context to the offences under the NDPS Act.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 5 - M M Bedi - Full Document

Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And Another on 23 May, 2022

In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on Matchumari China Venkatareddy and others versus State of A.P. 1994 Crl. L.J. 257 in which it has been held that unless the court takes the charge sheet on record for examination for taking cognizance or not, it cannot be said that a police report (charge sheet) is filed as contemplated under section 173(2) CrPC.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - K S Pawar - Full Document

Madhankumar vs The Regional Passport Officer on 13 July, 2023

10.For the same proposition of law, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Andhra 5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP(MD)No.16665 of 2023 Pradesh High Court reported in 1994 Cri.L.J.257 [Mathumari China Venkatareddy and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh], wherein it has been held that until the charge-sheet has been filed, a Magistrate cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence and that the Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence and direct the issue of process only on receipt of a police report and that till that stage is reached, he is said to be acting only as a Magistrate controlling the investigation made by the police. It has been further held in the said judgment as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - B Pugalendhi - Full Document

Raghubir Saran Jain And Anr. vs State And Anr. on 28 June, 1995

6. Following the above decision of the Supremo Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Matchumari China Venkatareddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 Cr LJ 257 has also observed that it is made so clear from, the above verdict of the Supreme Court which is still holding the field and which is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India that police report (charge-sheet) is one accompanied by the copies thereof to be served on the accused, and that mere filing of a police report under Section 173(2) Cr. P.C. without its accompaniments under Section 173(5) Cr. P.C. "is not a police report at ail." The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid decision has thus held, inter-alia, as follows :-
Calcutta High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Raghubirsaran Jain And Anr. vs The State And Anr. on 28 June, 1995

6. Following the above decision of the Supreme Court, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Matchumari China Venkatarreddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1994 Cri LJ 257 has also observed that "it is made so clear from the above verdict of the Supreme Court which is still holding the field and which is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution of India that police report (charge-sheet) is one accompanied by the copies thereof to be served on the accused, and that mere filing of a police report under Section 173(2). Cr. P. C. without its accompaniments under Section 173(5), Cr. P. C. is not a police report at all." The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the aforesaid decision has thus held, inter-alia, as follows :--
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Velinedipurnam vs State, Represented By Public ... on 4 November, 1993

5. The view taken by the learned single Judge in a decision reported in Matchumari China Venkata Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 (1) Law Summary 277, that the police report filed under S. 173(2) is not complete unless the same is filed in complete from complying with all the formalities prescribed under S. 173(2) and (5), and the accused shall have absolute right for being released cannot be accepted. With respect we cannot agree to the said view, and consequently, the view expressed by one of us (Radhakrishna Rao, J.)
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next