Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Patel Laljibhai Somabhai vs The State Of Gujarat on 7 May, 1971 cites

Emperor vs Raja Kushal Pal Singh on 14 April, 1931

Broadly speaking we are inclined to agree with the reasoning of the Allahabad Full Bench in Kushal Pal Singh's case(2). This in our opinion reflects the better view,. The purpose and object of the Legislature in creating the bar against cognizance of private complaints in regard to the offences mentioned in s. 195(1)(b) and (c) is both to save the accused person from vexatious or baseless prosecutions inspired by feelings of vindictiveness on the part of the private complainants to harass their opponents and also to avoid confusion which is likely to arise on account of conflicts between findings of the courts in which forged documents are produced or false evidence is led and the conclusions of the criminal courts dealing with the private complaint. It is for this reason as suggested earlier, that the Legislature has entrusted the court, whose proceedings bad been the (1) A. I. R. 1965 Guj. 70.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Basir-Ul-Huq And Others vs The State Of West ... on 10 April, 1953

420 and 467 I.P.C. along with S. 471 I.P.C., the first three sections were held to be cognate to S. 471 I.P.C. In this case too the earlier Full Bench decision was not noticed and the learned single Judge followed an earlier Division Bench decision of that Court reported as Hari Nath Singh v. State(1) In Hari Nath Singh's case(2), distinguishing the decision of this Court in Basr-ul-Huq v. State of West Bengal(1) it was observed that offences under ss. 193 and 218 I.P.C. in that case were both barred.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 97 - M C Mahajan - Full Document

The State Through Dhahybhaai Haribhai vs Bhikubhai Ranchhodji Desai And Ors. on 3 September, 1963

In State v. Bhikubhai(1) a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed that s. 195(1)(c) Cr. P.C. would apply even when the person accused of the offence referred therein in respect of a document produced in a court was not a party to the proceeding in which the document was produced provided such offence was committed by him jointly with a person who was a party to the proceeding or provided the offence with which he is charged is the same as alleged to have been committed by the persons who were parties to the proceedings. The Bench also observed that the words "party to a proceeding" are used in an abstract manner to indicate the only class or category of offenders. It was further said that cl. (c) of s. 195(1) must be strictly construed because it encroaches upon the jurisdiction of the ordinary criminal courts empowered to punish offences under s. 195 and is engrafted by way of an exception to the ordinary powers of criminal courts. It would, therefore, be improper to construe it in a manner which would restrict the jurisdiction of criminal courts unless the restriction is expressly provided for or necessarily follows.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1