Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Arvind Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 19 February, 1996
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar 1990 BBCJ 142. Wherein it has been held that cognizance taken by a Judicial Magistrate after transfer of the complaint petition by the Chief Judicial Magistrate is without jurisdiction. It has been held that the Chief Judicial Magistrate can transfer a case only after taking cognizance. The order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate was as follows:
Section 290 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 430 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 200 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Anil Saran vs The State Of Bihar And Another on 24 August, 1995
6. The provisions of Section 19 and 192 of the Code came up for consideration before the Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of Anil Saran v. State of Bihar and Anr. , has held that as soon as the Magistrate applies his judicial mind to the offence stated in the complaint or the police report etc., cognizance is said to be taken. It is further observed that whether the Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence of a complaint or on a police report or upon information of a person other than the Police Officer, depends upon further action taken pursuant thereto and the attending circumstances of the particular case including the mode in which the case is sought to be dealt with or the nature of the action taken by the Magistrate. The Apex Court further considered the question of illegality in transfer of the complaint under Section 192 of the Code, the Apex Court held that a Magistrate who receives case on transfer and takes cognizance would not become incompetent to do so merely because the sanction of transfer of the case to his file is not in accordance with law. It has been further laid down that the power to take cognizance has been conferred on a Magistrate by Section 190 (1) of the Code and he would not be denuded of this power because the case has come to his file pursuant to some illegal order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the learned Magistrate (the case has come in pursuant to some order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate) is to exercise his power of taking cognizance even in such a case, because of his having received a complaint constituting the offence and it would not be material, for this purpose, as to how he came to receive the complaint whether directly or on transfer from the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Apex Court held that even in case where the transfer order of Chief Judicial Magistrate under Section 192 of the Code is illegal the learned Magistrate, who receives the case on transfer, has jurisdiction to take cognizance and the illegality in the transfer order would not affect his jurisdiction.
Section 19 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Ekabal Pandey vs Kapildeo Rai And Ors. on 7 October, 1983
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of Ram Ekbal Pandey v. Kapildeo Rai 1983 BBCJ 717, wherein it has been held that Section 192 of the Code does not permit a routine order of transfer in a casual way. On the facts of the said case it was found that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate did not apply judicial mind before passing the transfer order under Section 192 of the Code and as such cognizance could not be said to have been taken by him before making the transfer. In the said case the order passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate was as follows;
1