Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)Madhu Limaye vs The State Of Maharashtra on 31 October, 1977
The case itself was not a revision but a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Relying upon the case of Madhu Limay v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1978 SC 47 : 1978 Cri LJ 165 where the Supreme Court held that "on a harmonious construction it should be held that bar provided in Section 397(2) opertes only in exercise of the revisional power of High Court meaning thereby that the High Court will have no power of revision in relation to any interlocutory order, but in such case inherent power will come into play, there being no other provision in the Code for the redressal of the grievance of the aggrieved party", this Court held that in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr.P.C. order under Sections 145(1) and 146(1), Cr.P.C. can be quashed. It is, therefore, clear that even Apex Court has held that revision against interlocutory order is not maintainable.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ram Sumer Puri Mahant vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 17 December, 1984
In the Apex Court verdict in Ram Sumer Puri Mahant v. State of U.P. AIR 1985 SC 472, this question was not considered hence this case does not help the opposite party.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 379 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Bhrigunath, Son Of Sumer vs Parmeshwar, Son Of Kumar And Ors. on 29 September, 1995
Same view was taken in Bhrigunath v. Parmeshwar 1996 All Cri C 426.
S. Gian Singh vs District And Sessions Judge, Delhi And ... on 19 February, 1959
12. The case of S. Singh v. District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur 1996 JIC 1000 has also not considered this question, hence this does not help the opposite party. Moreover, this was not under revisional jurisdiction but it was a writ petition and since the question under consideration was not taken up in this case it does not help the opposite party.
1