Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.94 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Emperor vs Keshav Talpade on 22 April, 1943
7. The decision in Emperor v. Keshav Talpade, however, does not lay down that, when a particular subject is mentioned in one of the 35 clauses of Sub-section (2) of Section 2, then the powers stated in that clause must be regarded as exhaustive of the particular subject. What the decision does lay down is that where in any of the clauses of Sub-section (2) certain express limitations are imposed in relation to any particular subject, it is not permissible to avoid those limitations by recourse to the general provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 2. In my opinion, if Rule 90(2)(e) is not covered by Clause (xxii) of Section 2(2), as it stood, it is intra vires under Section 2(1) of the Defence of India Act.
The Defence of India Act, 1962
Emperor vs Hansraj Astaji on 31 March, 1944
3. The learned Magistrate has further ordered the confiscation of the small coins under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and it is contended that according to the ruling in Emperor v. Hansraj Astaji (1944) 46 Bom. L.R. 529 F.B, the order of confiscation under Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code is illegal. But in that case the conviction was under Rule 81(4) of the Defence of India Rules for contravention of an Order made under Rule 81(2) and Sub-rule (4) expressly permits confiscation only if the Order contravened so provides. There was no such provision in the Order said to have been contravened in that case. There is no similar provision in Rule 90(3) and hence the power of confiscation given by Section 517 of the Criminal Procedure Code on a conviction under that sub-rule is unaffected.
1