Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Transmission Corporation Of A.P vs Ch. Prabhakar & Ors on 26 May, 2004

Gopal Krishna Patar @ Raja Peter vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 25 August, 2018

In the case of "Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh" (supra), the factual aspects reveal that with respect to theft of electrical energy, an FIR was instituted and after investigation, charge- sheet was submitted under Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 pursuant to which cognizance was taken by the learned IIIrd Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the trial, the State of Andhra Pradesh had introduced certain amendments which is known as Indian Electricity (Andhra Pradesh) Amendment Act, 2000, wherein the case of the writ petitioner was transferred to a Special Tribunal. The writ petitioner was aggrieved with respect to the transfer by virtue of the amending Act and has challenged the same before the High Court with respect to its vires and has sought for a further direction that the case be transferred from the Special Tribunal to the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for trial. The High Court had disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the trial shall continue before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate which was challenged by the Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh. On consideration of the factual and legal aspects, it was held as follows:
Jharkhand High Court Cites 84 - Cited by 1 - R Mukhopadhyay - Full Document

Dalbir Singh vs Bses Rajdhani Power Limited on 6 February, 2009

In Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. Ch. Prabhakar whether as a result of the Indian Electricity Act (Andhra Pradesh Amendment) Crl M C 2059/2008 Page 8 of 9 2000 which inserted Section 49 C in the Indian Electricity Act 1910, the existing complaints pending in the court of the learned MM should be transferred to the Special Courts, in which case the right of the effected persons to file an appeal to the Sessions Court would be taken away. The issue was therefore addressed in the context of Article 20 (1) of the Constitution and the prejudice that might be caused to an aggrieved litigant by not providing effective remedy by way of appeal if the cases came to be transferred to the Special Courts. Notwithstanding the fact that the said decision is being reconsidered by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is not seen how the said judgment can come to the aid of the Petitioner here. The issue in the present case is not that the complaint has been transferred from the court of the learned MM to the Special Court. Here the complaint has proceeded only in the Special Court even to begin with.
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 46 - S Muralidhar - Full Document

C.B.I. vs Dr. R.R. Kishore on 10 March, 2016

6. We have considered it necessary to make the present reference for the reason that in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. versus Ch. Prabhakar and others [(2004) 5 SCC 551] one of the questions referred is whether the scope and ambit of Article 20 of the Constitution of India is to be understood to be protecting the substantial rights or the immunity enjoyed by an accused at the time of commission of the offence for which he has been charged.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 7 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ajoy Kumar Ghosh vs The State Of West Bengal And Anr. on 7 September, 2007

12. Mr. Kumar Jyoti Tewari, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner vehemently contended that the provisions of Section 151 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, as it was originally stood not only prescribes a mere procedure but at the same time creates a vested and substantive right and an accused thereby earns an immunity from the risk of being prosecuted for an offence punishable under Electricity Act, 2003 on the basis of a police report. According to Mr. Tewari the said provisions clearly protects the accused from being prosecuted under the Electricity. Act, 2003 on a police report i.e. on the outcome of police investigation. Thus, he submitted the amendment of Section 151 of the said Act vide Electricity Amendment Act, 2007 ought to be held prospective and shall not apply retrospectively in the pending cases. In this connection Mr. Tewari further submitted that the Amendment Act in question no where indicates either expressly or by necessary intendment that the same would operate retrospectively and as such the said amendment would not affect the law as it was originally stood whereby taking of cognizance on police report was completely prohibited. Mr. Tewari in support of his contentions relied on the following decisions in the case of Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar , Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. C.H. Prabhakar , Bhajahari Mondal v. State of West Bengal and in the case of M.A. Kuttappan v. E. Krishan Nayanar .
Calcutta High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 6 - A K Roy - Full Document

Sufur Ali vs State Of Assam And Ors. on 19 January, 2007

27. The petitioner has not contended and/or pleaded anything as to why they are not in a position to pursue the statutory remedy and as to how the principles involved towards invoking writ jurisdiction even if statutory remedy of appeal is provided for, are attracted in the instant case. The apex court in various decisions has consistently reminded that the writ court will refrain from exercising its jurisdiction inasmuch as the proceeding under Article 226 is not a substitute for statutory appeal. Compared to statutory appeal, the scope and ambit of the writ jurisdiction is necessarily circumscribed. Though no hurdle can be put against the exercise of the constitutional powers of the High Court, it is a well recognised principle which gained judicial recognition that the High Court should direct the party to avail himself of alternative remedies one or the other before he resorts to constitutional remedy. As observed in the case of Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. Ch. Prabhakar. As , in proceedings under Article 226, the High Court cannot sit as a court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence for itself or to correct an error of fact, however apparent it might be on the ground that the evidence on which it was based was not satisfactory or sufficient. The apex court further observed that the proceedings under Article 226 are not a substitute for an appeal.
Gauhati High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Pradeep Ohri vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 20 December, 2007

Recently a question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. v. Ch. Prabhakar and Ors. , whether the constitutional guarantee enshrined in Article 20(1) was confined only to prohibition against conviction for any offence except for violation of law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence and subjection to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of offence or it also prohibited legislation which aggravated the degree of crime or made it possible for the accused to receive greater punishment even though It was also possible for him to receive the same punishment under the new law as could have been Imposed under the prior law or deprived the accused of any substantial right or Immunity possessed at the time of the commission of the offence charged, is a moot point to be debated. The said question of law has been referred to the larger Bench for consideration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - S K Mittal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next