Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
The State Of Gujarat vs Thakorbhai Sukhabhai And Ors. on 13 October, 1966 cites

Radhanath Maji vs Kishorilal Banerjee And Ors. on 4 January, 1957

(4) Mr. Nanavty has referred to three cases of different High Courts which support the view I take on a plain reading of the provisions of sections 243 to 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code as I have stated hereabove. The first case of Radhanath Maji v Kishorilal Banerjee, AIR 1958 Cal 194. In that case on the date fixed for hearing the prosecution evidence, the Magistrate on the request of the accused, after perusing the police papers, passed an order of acquittal under Section 245, Criminal Procedure Code . the High Court held that before an order of acquittal can be made under Section 245 of the Code evidence has to be heard. The Magistrate cannot without hearing the evidence pass an order straightway under Section 245. The police papers in spite of the recent amendment cannot take the place of evidence under Section 244 upon which the order of acquittal has to be based. The order of acquittal was accordingly set aside.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Mukhtiar Singh on 15 March, 1965

The third class referred to by him is of State of Rajasthan v. Mukhtiar Singh, 1965 (2) Cri LJ 835 (Raj), where it was similarly held that the directions contained in Section 244 are mandatory and without complying with those directions the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to deal with the case under Section 245 and to pass an order acquitting the accused. It is, thus, clear that the order of acquittal passed under Section 245 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Magistrate is in clear violation of the mandatory provisions contained in Sections 244 (1) and 245 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code and that, therefore, it is liable to be set aside.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1