Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)
Harihar Pati And Ors. vs Bada Pitei Naik And Ors. on 25 April, 1961 cites

Bahori S/O Kalloo vs Ghure S/O Balwant And Anr. on 24 April, 1959

In Bahori v. Ghure a contrary view was taken, but I: find that in a very recent Division Bench decision of the Punjab High Court reported in S. Jodh Singh v. Mahant Bhasambar Dass the view taken by me and by the Allahabad High Court has been adopted and the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court has been dissented from and partly distinguished. In the aforesaid Punjab decision it was rightly observed that though Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 145, Cri.P.C. were amended, consequential amendments were not made to Sub-section (9) of Section 145, Cri.P.C. and that if Sub-section (9) of Section 145. Cri.P.C. be construed as giving a wide power to the Magistrate concerned to summon any witness, as suggested by the first party, then the first proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Cri.P.C. would become nugatory in most instances, as it was expressly inserted by the amendment of 1955 it ought to be given full effect. I see therefore no reason to change my previous view or to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The trying Magistrate was, therefore, right in rejecting the prayer of the first party to summon witnesses for the purpose of securing their affidavits. The affidavits should be put in first and then the question of summoning any of them would arise for consideration.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 1 - Cited by 11 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

S. Jodh Singh And Ors. vs Mahant Bhagambar Dass And Ors. on 11 October, 1960

In Bahori v. Ghure a contrary view was taken, but I: find that in a very recent Division Bench decision of the Punjab High Court reported in S. Jodh Singh v. Mahant Bhasambar Dass the view taken by me and by the Allahabad High Court has been adopted and the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court has been dissented from and partly distinguished. In the aforesaid Punjab decision it was rightly observed that though Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 145, Cri.P.C. were amended, consequential amendments were not made to Sub-section (9) of Section 145, Cri.P.C. and that if Sub-section (9) of Section 145. Cri.P.C. be construed as giving a wide power to the Magistrate concerned to summon any witness, as suggested by the first party, then the first proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 145, Cri.P.C. would become nugatory in most instances, as it was expressly inserted by the amendment of 1955 it ought to be given full effect. I see therefore no reason to change my previous view or to refer the matter to a larger Bench. The trying Magistrate was, therefore, right in rejecting the prayer of the first party to summon witnesses for the purpose of securing their affidavits. The affidavits should be put in first and then the question of summoning any of them would arise for consideration.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1