Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.23 seconds)Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed on 17 October, 1944
In King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), their
Lordship ,of the Privy Council pointed out that "the
functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary,
not overlapping" and that the "court's. functions begin when
a charge is preferred before it, and not until then". It
was added that "it has sometimes been thought that s. 561-A
has given increased powers to the Court which it did not
possess before that section was enacted. But this is not
so, the section gives no new powers, it only provides that
those which the court- already inherently possesses shall be
preserved".
R. P. Kapur vs The State Of Punjab on 25 March, 1960
The question, therefore, to be considered is, whether in the
instant case, the allegations made in the First Information
Report, did not, if assumed to be correct, constitute the
offence of theft or its abetment against the appellant.
A plain reading of the First Information Report would show
that the answer to this question must be in the negative.
It is alleged therein that the bus (DLP-3867) belonged to
Indraj and Sukhlal of Chirag Delhi and was at the material
time in their possession through their servants, Munshi Ram
Driver, Mohinder Singh Conductor and Sher Singh Helper, and
that it was removed in the teeth of opposition from them,
without their consent, from their custody or possession by
four persons including Jehan Singh and R. K. Pathak, who all
entered into the vehicle which was then driven by one of
them, who was of strong build, medium height, dark
complexion etc. to Scindia House. In substance the
allegation was that the wrongful removal of the bus was the
concerted action of the appellant Jehan Singh and R. K.
Pathak and their un-named companions. Prima facie, the
allegations in the First Information Report, if taken as
correct, did disclose the commission of a cognizable offence
by the appellant and his companions. May be, that further
evidence to be collected by the police in the course of
investigation including the hire-purchase agreement,
partnership deed and the receipt etc. would confirm or
falsify the allegations made in the First information
Report. But, the High Court, at this stage, as was pointed
out by this Court in R. P. Kapur's case (supra), could not,
in
798
the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, appraise that
evidence or enquire as to whether it was reliable or not.
Might be, after collecting all the evidence, the police
would itself submit a cancellation report. If, however, a
charge-sheet is laid before the Magistrate under s. 173,
Criminal Procedure Code, then all these matters will have to
be considered by the Magistrate after taking cognizance of
the case. We cannot, at this stage, possibly indicate what
should be done in purely hypothetical situations which may
or may not arise in this case.
State Of West Bengal vs S. N. Basak on 12 April, 1962
The basic facts in the instant case are similar. Here also,
no police challan or charge-sheet against the accused had
been laid in court, when the petitions under s. 561-A were
filed. The impugned .Proceedings were those which were
being conducted in the course of
(1) [1960] 3 S.C.R. 388
797
police investigation. Prima facie, therefore, the rule in
Basak's case would be attracted.
The Special Courts Act, 1979
Section 420 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
1