Shiv Dutt Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 September, 1972
In support of his contention he has cited Venkataramana v. Emperor AIR 1919 Mad 1004, wherein Sadasiva Aiyer J. has observed:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (2.06 seconds)Documents citing
S.S. Venkataramana Aiyar vs Emperor on 21 September, 1917
Prodyot Kumar Mukherjee And Ors. vs R. Gersappe Regional Manager, Bank Of ... on 28 February, 1973
The present proceedings are under Sub-section (2) to Section 144 and therefore the aforesaid decision does not support Mr. Bose's contention. The next case referred to on behalf of the petitioners is the case of S. S. Venkataramana Aiyar v. Emperor reported in AIR 1919 Mad 1004 : 19 Cri LJ 1004. Mr. Bose relied on the observations of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., at p. 1006 that "I am clearly of opinion that 'the material facts' to be set out under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code, in a case like the present to include when an ex parte order is purported to be passed, the circumstances showing why the Magistrate was temporarily unable to prevent a breach of the peace by intending peace breakers.
Lala And Ors. vs Emperor on 25 August, 1933
In Subramanya Aiyar v. Emperor (1902) 25 Mad 61, the Judicial Committee pointed out that though in a sense the merest irregularity may be illegal it does not follow that all illegalities are within the scope of Section 537, Cr.P.C. But their Lordships do not say or suggest that nothing could be cured under the section if it is illegal.
The State vs Minaketan Patnaik on 22 April, 1952
Doubtless in 'LAKSHMINARAYANA AIYAR v. EMPEROR', 1917 Mad W N 831, there are some observations which might support a contrary view though that case is clearly distinguishable on facts from the present case. But with great respect to the learned Judges who decided that case it appears that the full significance of illustration (a) to Section 109 was not considered in that decision.
Gopalji Prasad vs State Of Sikkim And Ors. on 9 November, 1979
However wide the powers conferred by this section may be, the authority of the Magistrates exercising such powers is neither absolute nor supreme but is subject to supervision and revision by the higher Courts and therefore, the Magistrates in order to act legally and with propriety, must, as observed by Sadasiva Aiyar, J. in S.S. Venkataramana v. Emperor AIR 1919 Mad 1004 at p. 1007 : 1918-19 Cri LJ 56, indicate with reasonable fullness the materials on which they conclude that there was some emergency justifying their actions, so that the higher Courts may check and brake them and put them back on rails when they go off.
In Re: Padmaraja Shetty And Ors. vs Unknown on 21 February, 1949
In Venkataramana v. Emperor (1933) M.W.N. 1129, Sundaram Chetty and Pakenham Walsh, JJ., held that the evidence of an accomplice must as a rule be considered untrustworthy and should be corroborated in material particulars by independent and untainted evidence.
Bhajja vs Emperor on 2 December, 1938
6. It may be said that the distinction between illegalities and irregularities has the authority of their Lordships of the Privy Council expressed in Subramaniya Aiyar v. Emperor (1902) 25 Mad. 61, but I do not think their Lordships meant that Courts in this country were to ignore the provisions of the statute which governs the procedure of all Courts including Courts of Appeal.
1