Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.30 seconds)
Documents citing S.K. Bajaj And Ors. vs D.K. Bhattacharya And Ors. on 24 June, 1981

M.L. Mansoori vs State Of M.P. on 28 November, 1989

(1977 Cri LJ 90) R.C. Trivedi v. A H. Paranjape 1982 Cri LJ 869 (Bom) Kathamuthu v. Balammal 1987 Cri LJ 360 (Madras); Prakash Chandra Sharma v. Kaushal Kishore 1980 Cri LJ 578 (All); Panney Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1980 Cri LJ 339 (Raj); S.K. Bajaj and Ors. v. D.K. Bhattacharya 1982 Cri LJ 210 (Cal) K. Ch. Pandu Ranga Rao v. The Secretary, Agriculture Appellate, Committed Orgole 1985 Cri LJ 176 (Andh Pra) State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh AIR 1981 SC 1054 : (1981 Cri LJ 722) Ghansham Dass v. Sham Sundar Lal 1982 Cri LJ 1717 (Punj & Har) and Srinivas Pal v. Union Territory if Arunachal Pradesh AIR 1988 SC 1729 : (1988 Cri LJ 1803). The learned Government Advocate, however, insisted that the facts appearing in the charge sheet also disclose commission of offences punishable under Sections 468, 469 and 471 I.P.C. for which no period of limitation is prescribed. He, therefore prayed that this Court should, in larger public interest direct these charges to be framed. Even, otherwise, it is submitted that Section 473 Cr. P.C. does not require any application and casts an obligation on the Court to consider whether the delay, if any, deserves to be ignored, and since, the question of wider public interest is involved in the instant case, the delay was rightly condoned.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Basanta Kumar Mishra And Ors. vs State Of Orissa on 23 February, 2007

6. The next case relied upon the learned Counsel for the petitioners is S.K. Bajaj's case (supra). In the said case, the Calcutta High Court while dealing with the question of delay in filing the complaint petitions by the Provident Fund Inspector, quashed the order of taking cognizance. In that case the explanations offered for the delay in filing the complaint petitions were the delay in obtaining the sanction and in engagement of lawyers. In my opinion, the facts of that case and the law enunciated therein have no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the present proceeding does not arise out of a complaint case. In the said case, the Calcutta High Court has held that the salutary purpose of Section 473 Cr.P.C. should not be allowed to be circumvented by taking recourse to the magic words of "interest of justice" unless there is manifestation of compelling and justifiable reasons in the complaint and in the order taking cognizance, to do so. In the present case the order of taking cognizance has spelt out the justifiable reasons which came to the notice of the learned J.M.F.C. for the exercise of power under Section 473 Cr.P.C. and this is not a case where there was delay in filing the complaint itself. The F.I.R. was lodged on 31.5.2002 and the date of occurrence was 10.7.2001, clearly within the period of limitation and the delay in taking cognizance was on account of delay in investigation by the investigating agency and filing of charge sheet, none of which is attributable to the informant.
Orissa High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - I Mahanty - Full Document
1