Ganesan vs The Revenue Dvisional Officer Cum on 14 June, 2010
15. It is held by this Honourable Court in 2004-1 L.W.(Cri.) 287 (Bhaskara Narayanan vs. So.Murugesan) as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.31 seconds)Documents citing
A. Baskara Narayanan vs So. Murugesan on 22 October, 2003
Mrs. Thamaraiammal And Anr. vs The Executive Magistrate-Cum-Revenue ... on 10 January, 2007
13. There is an yet another decision in A. Baskara Narayanan v. So. Murugesan reported in 2004-1 LW Cri 287 : 2004 Cri LJ 91 wherein it has been held as follows:
Mrs.Lalitha Narayan vs Latha Barathan on 13 March, 2008
9. It is very much pertinent to refer to the verdict of this court in BASKARA NARAYANAN,A. v. So.MURUGESAN (2003(4) CTC 547) and also in THAMARAIAMMAL v. EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE-CUM-REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER (2007 Crl.L.J. 1885) wherein this court has declared that passing of a preliminary order under section 145(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a mandatory requirement beforeever proceeding further to pass final order. Therefore, it is found that the impugned order passed by the Executive Magistrate is not sustainable in the eye of law.
1