Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 205 (4.19 seconds)
Documents citing Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs State Of Maharashtra on 2 September, 1971

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

In Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra9, speaking for the Court, Shelat, J. stated that under Section 190 of the Code, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been said, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, thus, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 80 - Cited by 1 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

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

In Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra10, speaking for the Court, Shelat, J. stated that under Section 190 of the Code, a Magistrate may take cognizance of an offence either (a) upon receiving a complaint, or (b) upon a police report, or (c) upon information received from a person other than a police officer or even upon his own information or suspicion that such an offence has been committed. As has often been said, taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind. It occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, thus, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence.
Allahabad High Court Cites 88 - Cited by 0 - Y K Srivastava - Full Document

Niraj @ Banti Shahi And 3 Others vs State Of Upand Another on 7 May, 2025

In Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda and others69, the Supreme Court after in-depth review of prior judicial determinations in Pepsi Foods Ltd (supra), Darshan Singh Ram Kishan (supra), Emperor v. Sourindra Mohan (supra), Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi70, Kishun Singh v. State of Bihar71, State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid72, Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan73, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. (supra), U.P. Pollution Control Board v. Bhupendra Kumar Modi 74 held that no formal or speaking order or reasoned orders are required at the stage of section 190/204 Cr.P.C., there must be sufficient indication on the application of mind by the Magistrate to the facts constituting commission of an offence and the statements recorded under section 200 Cr.P.C. so as to proceed against the offender. The relevant para is extracted hereinbelow:
Allahabad High Court Cites 100 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 17 March, 2017

Ultimately when a Magistrate looks at police report also styled as   charge­sheet under S. 190(1)(b) he takes cognizance of an offence   upon a police report and prima facie he does so of the offence or   offences set out in the report (Vide Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v.   State of Maharashtra, (1972) 1 SCR 571 at p. 574 : 1971 Cri LJ   1697.   And   the   report   under   discussion   does   disclose   an   offence   under S. 7 of the Act".
Gujarat High Court Cites 116 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document

The State Of Maharashtra vs Pragyasinh Chandrapalsinh Thakur And ... on 19 July, 2010

In the case of Darshan Singh Ram Kishan vs. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1971 SC 2372], the Supreme Court held that taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or in deed action of any kind or occurs as soon as a Magistrate applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence.
Bombay High Court Cites 75 - Cited by 0 - B H Marlapalle - Full Document

State Of Karnataka & Anr vs Pastor P. Raju on 4 August, 2006

In Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 2372, while considering Section 190 of the Code of 1908, it was observed that "taking cognizance does not involve any formal action or indeed action of any kind but occurs as soon as a Magistrate as such applies his mind to the suspected commission of an offence. Cognizance, therefore, takes place at a point when a magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence. This is the position whether the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report, or upon information of a person other than a police officer."
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 180 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Sarah Mathew vs Inst., Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors on 26 November, 2013

c. Taking cognizance is distinct from filing complaint. The term cognizance has been defined by this Court in R.R. Chari and Darshan Singh Ram Kishan v. State of Maharashtra[18]. Cognizance takes place when a Magistrate first takes judicial notice of an offence on a complaint, or on a police report or upon information of a person other than a police officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 81 - Cited by 234 - P Sathasivam - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next