Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.76 seconds)
Documents citing Golam Rahaman Khan And Ors. vs Kali Pada Manna And Anr. on 15 April, 1932

Sushanta Jana vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors. on 13 October, 1993

In view of the relevant provisions of the Code and the decisions referred to above, there could be little doubt that the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned at Howrah was not incompetent to try the alleged offence even though the same had been allegedly committed within Uluberia SubDivision, and not within Howrah Sub-Division, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the relevant case. The materials on record would indicate that the learned C.J.M. had transferred the relevant case to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned at Howrah for disposal in view of the allegations made by the complainant that some of the accused persons had much influence at Uluberia Sub-Division and the witnesses were apprehensive of coming to Uluberia, and that the complainant himself was also apprehensive of pursuing his legal remedies before the Courts of the Judicial Magistrates at Uluberia, in the circumstances stated by him.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

In Re: A.R.M. Manickam Chettiar vs Unknown on 28 October, 1966

This argument was repelled and it was held by the Bench that the complaint originally initiated in the Court of the District Magistrate of Hoshangabad was proper as the District Magistrate has jurisdiction over the entire district wherever (in that District) the offence might have been committed. The Bench followed the Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court in Golam Rahman Khan v. Kali Pada Manha AIR 1932 Cal 864, holding that mere definition of areas by way of distribution of work amongst the various sub-divisional magistrates would not affect the jurisdiction of the District Magistrate stationed at the headquarters of the district. It was emphasised that mere sub-division of the district cannot amount to delimiting the area of jurisdiction, as, if it is so understood, it would render Sub-section (2) of Section 12 useless and devoid of any meaning.
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Lal vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. on 30 March, 1973

There is a general consensus of opinion that the mere definition of areas of jurisdiction or the appointment of a Magistrate to a certain sub-division cannot be taken as a provision excluding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to the rest of the district and that in the absence of some provision expressly or by necessary implication excluding such jurisdiction, the Magistrate must be held to have jurisdiction throughout the dis- trick Thus the mere fact that a Magistrate is placed in Charge of a Sub-Division under Section 13, is, in- the absence of anything to the contrary, no eround for holding that his jurisdiction over the rest of the district is excluded. The petitioner has been unable to show that there was any order passed by the State Government or subject to its control, by the District Magistrate, expressly or implied-ly taking away the .-jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate from the rest of the district. In the absence of such an order, it must be taken that his jurisdiction extended to the entire district. See Sarat Chunder Roy v. Bepin Chandra Roy, (1902) ILR 29 Cal 389; Golam Rahaman Khan v. Kali Pada Manna AIR 1932 Cal 064 : 33 Cri LJ 858; Ghulam Hussain v. Sajawal Shah.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1