Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Dirgopal Singh And Ors. vs Rambrich Singh on 18 November, 1949

Durjan Singh vs The State And Ors. on 27 April, 1954

In a later case Dirgopal Singh v. Rambrich Singh Agarwala C. J. threw a doubt and was not sure whether an omission to record a preliminary order in terms of Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. was a curable irregularity. He proceeded to say, however, that assuming that to be so for the purposes of the case before him, the question was whether the materials before the Magistrate were so coercive that it should be held that he must be satisfied that the dispute was likely to occasion a breach of the peace while he did not record that he was so satisfied;and on an examination of the materials on the record, the learned Chief Justice came to the conclusion that they were not sufficient and, therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Durjan Singh vs The State And Ors. on 27 April, 1954

In a later case -- 'Dir-gopal Singh v. Rambrich Singh', AIR 1951 Pat 412 (23) Agarwala C. J. threw a doubt and was not sure wnetner an omission to record a preliminary order in terms of Section 145 (1), Cr. P. C. was a curable irregularity. He proceeded to say, however, that assuming that to be so for the purposes, of the case before him, the question was whether the materials before the Magistrate were so coercive that it should be held that he must be satisfied that the dispute was likely to occasion a breach of the peace while he did not record that he was so satisfied; and on an examination of the materials on the record, the learned Chief Justice came to the conclusion that they were not sufficient and, therefore, the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Murali Patel vs Purusottam Bhati And Anr. on 25 January, 1965

In the order dated 12-11-1963, already quoted, the Magistrate does not at all make any reference to the element that a particular dispute was likely to cause a breach of the peace and necessarily he does not state the grounds of his satisfaction about the existence of such dispute. Due to the absence of the aforesaid two elements, Mr. Rath contends that the entire proceeding is without jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed on Dirgopal Singh v. Rambrich Singh, A I R 1951 Pat 412, Kshetromoni v. Raghunath Patnaik, AIR 1953 Orissa 255 and Pakamaraja Naicker v. Chidambara Nadar, (S) A I R 1955 Mad 229. All these cases are clearly distinguishable. In AIR 1951 Pat 412 the Magistrate nowhere recorded that he was satisfied of the existence of a dispute likely to occasion breach of the peace. He did not state so in the notice issued to the parties nor recorded this in the order sheet and his final order made no mention of the existence of a dispute likely to occasion breach of the peace. His Lordship quashed the proceeding as there was no indication in that case that either of the parties raised this question before the Magistrate, or at any stage of the proceeding the Magistrate applied his mind to this question.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1