Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 12 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Sarat Chunder Roy vs Bepin Chandra Roy on 21 January, 1902
There is a general consensus of opinion that the mere definition of areas of jurisdiction or the appointment of a Magistrate to a certain sub-division cannot be taken as a provision excluding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to the rest of the district and that in the absence of some provision expressly or by necessary implication excluding such jurisdiction, the Magistrate must be held to have jurisdiction throughout the dis- trick Thus the mere fact that a Magistrate is placed in Charge of a Sub-Division under Section 13, is, in- the absence of anything to the contrary, no eround for holding that his jurisdiction over the rest of the district is excluded. The petitioner has been unable to show that there was any order passed by the State Government or subject to its control, by the District Magistrate, expressly or implied-ly taking away the .-jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate from the rest of the district. In the absence of such an order, it must be taken that his jurisdiction extended to the entire district. See Sarat Chunder Roy v. Bepin Chandra Roy, (1902) ILR 29 Cal 389; Golam Rahaman Khan v. Kali Pada Manna AIR 1932 Cal 064 : 33 Cri LJ 858; Ghulam Hussain v. Sajawal Shah.
Gulabrao Laxmanrao Chandgude vs Emperor on 1 August, 1935
AIR 1933 Lah 143; Gulabrao Laxmanrao Chand-gude v. Emperor AIR 1935 Bom 409 : 37 Cri LJ 514; Baliram Nagorap Ek-bote v. Dawalatsingh Gulab Singh AIR 1945 Nag 56 : 46 Cri LJ 654; State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Kishna.-das Nima AIR 1955 Nag 189 : 1955 Cri LJ 1084.
Om Prakash Gupta vs State Of U. P.(With Connected Appeals) on 11 January, 1957
Radhey v. Girwar ; Pari-chan Singh v. Heman Singh, and Om Prakash v. State .
Section 13 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Radhey And Ors. vs Girwar on 23 December, 1958
Radhey v. Girwar ; Pari-chan Singh v. Heman Singh, and Om Prakash v. State .
Golam Rahaman Khan And Ors. vs Kali Pada Manna And Anr. on 15 April, 1932
There is a general consensus of opinion that the mere definition of areas of jurisdiction or the appointment of a Magistrate to a certain sub-division cannot be taken as a provision excluding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate to the rest of the district and that in the absence of some provision expressly or by necessary implication excluding such jurisdiction, the Magistrate must be held to have jurisdiction throughout the dis- trick Thus the mere fact that a Magistrate is placed in Charge of a Sub-Division under Section 13, is, in- the absence of anything to the contrary, no eround for holding that his jurisdiction over the rest of the district is excluded. The petitioner has been unable to show that there was any order passed by the State Government or subject to its control, by the District Magistrate, expressly or implied-ly taking away the .-jurisdiction of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate from the rest of the district. In the absence of such an order, it must be taken that his jurisdiction extended to the entire district. See Sarat Chunder Roy v. Bepin Chandra Roy, (1902) ILR 29 Cal 389; Golam Rahaman Khan v. Kali Pada Manna AIR 1932 Cal 064 : 33 Cri LJ 858; Ghulam Hussain v. Sajawal Shah.
1