Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.26 seconds)Gunmala Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Anu Mehta & Ors on 17 October, 2014
The law laid down in Gunamala case applies in all fours to the facts obtaining in the present case.
Mehmood Ul Rehman vs Khazir Mohammad Tunda . on 31 March, 2015
245] and Mehmood UL Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda & Others [(2015) Cri.L.J. 2856] and therefore, the cognizance order requires to be quashed.
Dy. Chief Controller Of Imports & ... vs Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors on 5 March, 2003
In Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports vs. Roshanlal Agarwal and others [AIR (2003) SC 1900], the Supreme Court held as follows:
Kanti Bhadra Shah And Anr vs State Of West Bengal on 5 January, 2000
"9. In determining the question whether any process is to be issued or not, what the Magistrate has to be satisfied is whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and not whether there is sufficient ground for conviction. Whether the evidence is adequate for supporting the conviction, can be determined only at the trial and not at the stage of inquiry. At the stage of issuing the process to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record reasons. This question was considered recently in U.P. Pollution Control Board v. M/s. Mohan Meakins Ltd. & Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 745, and after noticing the law laid down in Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of West Bengal, (2000) 1 SCC 722, it was held as follows: "The legislature has stressed the need to record reasons in certain situations such as dismissal of a complaint without issuing process. There is no such legal requirement imposed on a Magistrate for passing detailed order while issuing summons. The process issued to accused cannot be quashed merely on the ground that the Magistrate had not passed a speaking order."
Nupur Talwar vs Cbi & Anr on 7 June, 2012
23. In the light of the above law, a perusal of the adjudication order shows that the Magistrate has perused the complaint on file and only thereafter, he has transferred it to the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.W.-II, for disposal according to law. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be stated that he has not applied his mind while taking the complaint on file. As stated by the Supreme Court in Nupur Talwar case (cited supra), it is not essential for the concerned Magistrate to record reasons or pass a speaking order. This Court does not find any infirmity in the cognizance order of the Magistrate.
Sarah Mathew vs Inst., Cardio Vascular Diseases & Ors on 26 November, 2013
In Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr.K.M.Cherian and others [(2014) 2 SCC 62], the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has quoted with approval the following statement of law made in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492]:
S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer vs Videocon International Ltd. & Ors on 25 January, 2008
In Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr.K.M.Cherian and others [(2014) 2 SCC 62], the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court has quoted with approval the following statement of law made in Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd. [(2008) 2 SCC 492]: