Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.06 seconds)Central Bureau Of Investigation, ... vs Anupam J. Kulkarni on 8 May, 1992
In view of above facts and circumstances and law laid
down by the Hon'ble Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court,
especially law laid down by Apex court in CBI v. Anupam, J.
Kulkarni9, respondent Nos.4 to 17 in W.P.No.9715 of 2018 and
respondents 4 to 13 in WP No.13383 of 2018 are hereby
directed to produce the husbands of the petitioners on P.T
9
(1992) 3 SCC 141
15 ARR,J
WPs_9715_13383_2018
warrant, if any crimes are pending against him, and complete
the investigation as expeditiously as possible.
Smt. Bharti Sachdeva vs State And Ors. on 11 August, 1995
30. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the words "other
proceeding under this Code" occurring in Sec.267(1) and the
words "or for the purpose of any proceeding" used in
Sec.267(1)(a) are compendious and include proceedings of an
investigation. With great respect we disagree with the judgments
rendered by learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in
Harshad S.Mehta (supra), and two learned Judges of the
Rajasthan High Court in Bharti Sachdeva (supra). We are of the
view that in these two judgments the general words "other
proceeding" occurring in Sec.267 Cr.P.C have not been analysed
in right perspective."
Harshad S. Mehta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 1 October, 1992
30. Thus, we are inclined to hold that the words "other
proceeding under this Code" occurring in Sec.267(1) and the
words "or for the purpose of any proceeding" used in
Sec.267(1)(a) are compendious and include proceedings of an
investigation. With great respect we disagree with the judgments
rendered by learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in
Harshad S.Mehta (supra), and two learned Judges of the
Rajasthan High Court in Bharti Sachdeva (supra). We are of the
view that in these two judgments the general words "other
proceeding" occurring in Sec.267 Cr.P.C have not been analysed
in right perspective."
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Mukesh Kumar Agrawal vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 31 July, 2009
Even the High Court of
Allahabad also relied on the judgments referred to above by
the High Court of Rajasthan and High Court of Delhi in
Smt.Bharti Sachdeva's case and Harshad S.Mehta's case and came
to the same conclusion in the case of Mukesh vs. State of U.P
(supra).
Bineesh vs State Of Kerala on 1 May, 2015
In the
above circumstances, the decision in Bineesh's case (2006 (1)
KLT 505) is overruled.
State Of Maharashtra vs Yadav Natthuji Kohachade on 19 July, 1999
In State of Maharashtra v. Yadav Natthuji Kohachade8, it is
held as follows:
The Andhra Pradesh Prevention Of Dangerous Activities Of Bootleggers, Dacoits, Drug-Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders And Land-Grabbers Act, 1986.
Mukesh Ram Chandani And Others Etc. vs State Of U.P. And Others on 13 November, 1995
In support of her contentions, she
relied on the judgments reported in Smt.Bharti Sachdeva v.
State and others2, Mukesh and others v. State of U.P and others3
and in Harshad S.Mehta v. Central Bureau of Investigation4.
2
1996 CriLJ 2102
3
1998 (3) AWC 1960AII
4
1992 (24) DRJ 392
9 ARR,J
WPs_9715_13383_2018