Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.46 seconds)
Nidhi Sharma vs State Of Raj And Anr on 31 May, 2013 cites

Smt. Sooraj Devi vs Pyare Lal And Anr on 8 January, 1981

Objection about this question is that the very framing of question is contrary to the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the options given are also incorrect. Similar question given in the competitive examination conducted for Rajasthan Judicial Services, 2011 was deleted by this court. According to RPSC, this question was though similarly worded as question no.56 in A-series of the preliminary examination of RJS but option no.4 of this question was given as option no.2 in that examination paper, option no.1 was mentioned as option no.4 and option no.2 as also option no.3 and option no.3 as option no.1. Thus, the options in RJS preliminary examination were arranged in entirely different order. Fourth option of the question herein was mentioned as option no.2 in that examination. Therefore, RPSC on its own deleted it and Division Bench of this court upheld. This court has to analyze the question in the light of the provisions of Cr.P.C. Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. provides that no court shall alter or review its judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. Though this Section in its saving clause provides that Save as otherwise provide by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, ..., the Supreme Court in Sooraj Devi Vs. Pyare Lal (1981) 1 SCC 500 held that the inherent power of the Court is not contemplated by the saving provision contained in section 362.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 210 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Hari Singh Mann vs Harbhajan Singh Bajwa & Ors on 1 November, 2000

The Supreme Court in Hari Singh Mann Vs. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa and Others AIR 2001 SC 43 and State of Punjab Vs. Devendra Pal Singh Bhullar AIR 2012 SC 364 also held that inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to review a judgment or final order in a criminal case which is expressly barred by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Second option that Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to convert itself into a court of appeal, whereas legislature has not authorized it expressly or indirectly, also does not appear to be legally sound. Section 482 Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to exercise its inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of law or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. It is trite that such power has to be exercised sparingly and with caution. The High Court can exercise power on application as also suo-motu but only when there is no remedy available to litigant within the parameters of the Code. But to say that this provision even entitles the High Court to convert itself into the court of appeal whereas legislature has not provided so, may not be legally correct.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 441 - Full Document

K. M. Nanavati vs State Of Maharashtra on 24 November, 1961

(1) State of Rajasthan Vs. Smt. Kanuri Devi, 1998 Rajasthan (2) Shamim Rehamni Vs. State of U.P., 1975 S.C. (3) K.M. Nanawati Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1961 S.C. (4) Palvinder Koer Vs. State of Punjab, 1952 S.C. Objection of the petitioners about this question is that it has not been properly framed inasmuch as there is no decision delivered on the basis of tears from eyes. Evidence of a woman on the basis of tears from eyes is not envisaged in law. The correct option accepted by RPSC is option no.1.
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 284 - Full Document

S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi & Ors on 8 May, 1981

(1) Chief Minister and Prime Minister (2) Judge and Magistrate (3) Government servant appointed on deputation (4) Principal of Government College As per the petitioners, all four options given below this question are correct, whereas, according to RPSC, option no.3 is the correct answer because a government servant while on deputation would not be a public servant . To bring home their point, the respondents have cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in S.S. Dhanoa vs Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others AIR 1981 SC 1395, wherein it has been held that a civil servant working on deputation with a cooperative society would not be a public servant and therefore sanction for his prosecution would not be necessary. Whenever a government servant is working on deputation against a non-government post, he would be as per the ratio of aforesaid judgment is not a public servant. This can be best understood with reference to Explanation 2 given below Section 21 of the IPC providing that Whenever the words public servant occur, they shall be understood of every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal defect there may be in his right to hold that situation. What is therefore important to decide the character of a public servant is that he should be in actual possession of the situation of a public servant. The option indicated as correct choice by RPSC is therefore the nearest correct answer. The objection of the petitioners is therefore rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 150 - O C Reddy - Full Document
1