Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.92 seconds)Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Nripendra Bhusan Ray vs Gobinda Bandhu Majumdar on 3 August, 1923
In dealing with
this class of cases it is important to bear in mind the
distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence
or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly
inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there
is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not
support the accusation in question. In exercising its
jurisdiction under s. 561-A the High Court would not embark
upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not. That is the function of the trial magis-
trate, and ordinarily it would not be open to any party to
invoke the High Court's inherent jurisdiction and' contend
that on a reasonable appreciation of the evidence the
accusation made against the accused would not be sustained.
Broadly stated that is the nature and scope of the inherent
jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 561-A in the matter
of quashing
394
criminal proceedings, and that is the effect of the judicial
decisions on the point (Vide: In Re: Shripad G. Chandavarkar
(1), Jagat Ohandra Mozumdar v. Queen Empress (2 ), Dr.
Shanker Singh v. The State of Punjab (3 ), Nripendra Bhusan
Ray v. Govind Bandhu Majumdar(4 ) and Ramanathan Chettiyar
v. K. Sivarama Subrahmanya Ayyar (5).)