Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 280 (1.22 seconds)
Documents citing R. R. Chari vs State Of U.P on 28 March, 1962

Atmaram Yadav 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 22 June, 2022

27. R.R. Chari v. State of U.P.13, was probably the first leading decision of this Court on the point. There, the police, having suspected the appellant-accused to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 161 and 165 of the Penal Code (IPC) as also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, applied to the District Magistrate, Kanpur to issue warrant of arrest on 22-10-1947. Warrant was issued on the next day and the accused was arrested on 27-10-1947.
Allahabad High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Badri Prasad And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 14 December, 2021

27. R.R. Chari v. State of U.P.12, was probably the first leading decision of this Court on the point. There, the police, having suspected the appellant-accused to be guilty of offences punishable under Sections 161 and 165 of the Penal Code (IPC) as also under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, applied to the District Magistrate, Kanpur to issue warrant of arrest on 22-10-1947. Warrant was issued on the next day and the accused was arrested on 27-10-1947.
Allahabad High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Anand Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 3 Ors on 11 February, 2020

"............It is, however, argued that in Chari's case this Court was dealing with a matter which came under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It seems to us, however, that makes no difference. It is the principle which was enunciated by Das Gupta, J., which was approved. As to when cognizance is taken of an offence will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and it is impossible to attempt to define what is meant by taking cognizance. Issuing of a search warrant for the purpose of an investigation or of a warrant of arrest for that purpose cannot by themselves be regarded as acts by which cognizance was taken of an offence. Obviously, it is only when a Magistrate applies his mind for the purpose of proceeding under s. 200 and subsequent sections of Chapter XVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under s. 204 of Chapter XVII of the Code that it can be positively stated that he had applied his mind and therefore had taken cognizance."
Allahabad High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - M R Chauhan - Full Document

Dr Rita Bakshi vs Seema Bajaj & Anr on 18 March, 2026

―8. To decide whether the case in which the appellants were first acquitted and thereafter convicted was instituted on a complaint or not, it is necessary to find put whether the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gopalganj, in whose Court the case was instituted, took cognizance of the offences in question on the complaint of Bhadai Sah filed in his Court on November 22, 1956 or on the report of the Sub-Inspector of Police dated December, 13, 1956. It is well settled now that when on a petition of complaint being filed before him a Magistrate applies his mind for proceeding under the various provisions of Chapter 16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he must be held to have taken cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint. When however he applies his mind not for such purpose but for purposes of ordering investigation under Section 156(3) or issues a search warrant for the purpose of investigation he cannot be said to have taken cognizance of any offence. It was so held by this Court in R.R. Chari v. State of U.P. [1951 SCC 250 :
Delhi High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 0 - S K Sharma - Full Document

R. Balakrishna Pillai vs State on 21 September, 1995

29. In any event, as there is no valid sanction as contemplated under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, I hold that the charges framed against A5 and A8 under Section 161. IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 have to be quashed. I also hold that there is no bar for prosecuting A5 and A8 for the other offences for which a valid sanction was obtained under Section 197, Crl. P.C. In my view, the absence of a sanction under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act will not prevent the prosecution from prosecuting A5 and A8 for the other offences with which they now stand charged, as a valid sanction had been given under Section 197. Crl. P.C. It is to be noted that in R.R. Chari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, . the case which was already referred to by me. the Supreme Court though set aside the proceedings against the accused under Sections 161 and 165 of the IPC took the view that a prosecution can be continued in respect of the other offences for which no sanction is required under Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court, in the above said judgment took the view that the offences which are outside the scope of Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and for which sanction is found accorded under Section 197. Crl. P.C. a prosecution will be legally permissible.
Kerala High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - N Dhinakar - Full Document

Shriyans Prasad Jain vs Shanti Prasad Jain on 9 September, 1976

...The word 'cognizance' has no esoteric or mystic significance in criminal law or procedure. It merely means-become aware of and when used with reference to a Court or Judge, to take notice of judicially. It was stated in Gopal Marwari v. Emperor, by the learned Judges of the Patna High Court in a passage quoted with approval by this Court in R.R. Chari v. The State of Uttar Pradesh , that the word 'cognizance' was used in the Code to indicate the point when the Magistrate or Judge takes judicial notice of an offence and that it was a word of indefinite import, and is not perhaps always used in exactly the same sense.
Bombay High Court Cites 42 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next