Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1314 (2.14 seconds)
Documents citing Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936

State Of Sikkim vs Suren Rai on 10 March, 2018

In Abdul Razak Shaikh case [1988 Cri LJ 382 : 1987 Mah LJ 863 (Bom)] the Bombay High Court also relied on a decision of the Nagpur High Court in Neharoo Mangtu Satnami v. Emperor [AIR 1937 Nag 220 : 38 Cri LJ 642] where also the Nagpur High Court relying on the aforesaid decision of the Privy Council in Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor [AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) : 63 IA 372] held that the evidence of the Magistrate, who recorded the confession of the accused and did not obtain his signatures thereon, was inadmissible.
Sikkim High Court Cites 134 - Cited by 5 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

K.P. Hussain Reddy And Ors. vs Executive Engineer, M.I. Division And ... on 11 October, 2002

It was applied by the Privy Council, in Nazir Ahmed v. Emperor, 63 Ind App 372 = (AIR 1936 PC 253 (2)), and later by this Court in several cases, Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. (1954) SCR 1098 = (AIR 1954 SC 332 = 1954 Crl LJ 910); Deep Chand v. State of Rajsthan to a Magistrate making a record under Sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This rule squarely applies "where indeed, the whole aim and object of the Legislature would be plaintly defeated if the command to do the thing in a particular manner did not imply a prohibition to do it in any other. Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 11th Edn., pp. 362-363.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 78 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Hon Ble Mr. Justice Syed Rafat Alam vs Union Of India on 13 December, 2013

Here we have already taken a note of the judgment in the case of Nazir Ahmed vs. The King-Emperor (supra) as well as Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and others (supra) as also Uttar Pradesh Upbhokta Sehkari Sangh Limited through its Managing Director and Branch Manager vs. Vijay Shankar Rai (supra). These judgments clearly provide that where the rules so stipulate then a thing has to be done in the same manner or not to be done at all. Reading the above judgments, we find that the issue of competence of the Ministry of Home Affairs or the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions has not been gone into at all in the said decision of the Coordinate Bench.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Roshan Beevi And Ors. vs Joint Secretary To Government Of Tamil ... on 9 November, 1983

39. Once again, the principle in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253(2) : (1936-37 Cri LJ 897) was re-affirmed by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Singhara Singh, wherein a question arose with regard to the admissibility of the oral evidence given by a Second Class Magistrate not specially empowered in matter of recording a confession of guilt made to him by the accused and purported to have been recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. In that connection, the Supreme Court, after having stated (at page 266), "The rule adopted in Taylor v. Taylor, (1875) 1 Ch D 426, is well recognised and is founded on sound principle. Its result is that if a statute has conferred a power to do an act and has laid down the method in which that power has to be exercised, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any other manner than that which has been prescribed. The principle behind the rule is that if this were not so, the statutory provision might as well not have been enacted." has finally concluded thus :
Madras High Court Cites 101 - Cited by 112 - S R Pandian - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next