Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)
B.Radhakrishnan Nair vs State Of Kerala on 20 August, 2013 cites

M/S. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr vs Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors on 4 November, 1997

20. The principle that can be culled out is that unless there is a special procedure, which is prescribed mandatory, the nomenclature under which petition is filed is not quite relevant. But, here, for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Sec.397 and 401 of the Cr.P.C., a special procedure is specifically prescribed and that procedure specifically mandates that the jurisdiction and power can be exercised to satisfy as to correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the inferior court. If that be so, needless to say, a different view is possible than what was formed by the inferior court on the material is not sufficient to invoke revisional jurisdiction and implement the view of the revisional court if that view was also possible. The facts and circumstances of that case in the decision referred above were entirely different. There, an order passed in a writ petition filed before the High Court under 226 of the Constitution of India was under challenge, not an order Crl.R.P. No. 611 of 2013 -: 25 :- passed on a petition for discharge under Sec.239 of the Cr.P.C. So, unlike revisional jurisdiction, in the absence of special procedure, the Apex Court held that though writ petition was filed Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court can certainly treat it as one under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or 482 of the Cr.P.C. But, I am of the opinion that it cannot be interpreted to mean that a revision filed under Sec.397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. can be treated as one filed under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. for jumping over the scope of jurisdiction specifically prescribed, so as to consider possibility of defense contention raised by the accused for getting discharge. It is to be borne in mind that this decision reminds that inherent power under Sec.482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to over reach specifically prescribed procedure under another provision of the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 3106 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document
1   2 Next