Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
In Re: Sellamuthu Padayachi vs Unknown on 5 August, 1953 cites

Subramania Ayyar And Ors. vs Emperor on 10 October, 1935

In - 'Subramania Aiyar v. King Emperor' 25 Mad 81 (C) and-'Abdul Rahman v. Emperor' AIR 1927 PC 44 (D), the Privy Council has laid down that a disregard of an express provision of law as to the mode of trial was not a mere irregularity such as could be remedied by Section 537, Criminal P. C. The phrase "irregularity" is inappropriate when an illegality is committed by an infraction of a rule of law. Therefore if we are satisfied that the examination of witnesses by the police officer in direct contravention of Sub-section (4) of Section 495, Criminal P. C., is an illegality Which would vitiate and render void the entire proceedings before the committing court, then there had been no committal at all to the Sessions Court and as such the trial before the Sessions Court would also be illegal.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Emperor vs Tribhovandas Purshottam Das Mangrole ... on 17 August, 1908

In - 'Emperor v. Tribhovandas' 26 Bom 533 (F), Candy and Pulton JJ. following Clause (4) of Section 495, Criminal P. C. held that a police Inspector who had taken part in the investigation into an offence is not qualified to conduct the prosecution of the person charged with the offence. There, the conviction was by a City Magistrate as a result of prosecution conducted by a Police Inspector and since the fines imposed were non-appealable, the matter came up directly in revision to the High Court. There were therefore no intervening or intermediary proceedings in a Sessions Court and so this decision does not afford much assistance in the solution of the problem.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kazi Bazlur Rahman vs Emperor on 7 September, 1928

In - 'Subramania Aiyar v. King Emperor' 25 Mad 81 (C) and-'Abdul Rahman v. Emperor' AIR 1927 PC 44 (D), the Privy Council has laid down that a disregard of an express provision of law as to the mode of trial was not a mere irregularity such as could be remedied by Section 537, Criminal P. C. The phrase "irregularity" is inappropriate when an illegality is committed by an infraction of a rule of law. Therefore if we are satisfied that the examination of witnesses by the police officer in direct contravention of Sub-section (4) of Section 495, Criminal P. C., is an illegality Which would vitiate and render void the entire proceedings before the committing court, then there had been no committal at all to the Sessions Court and as such the trial before the Sessions Court would also be illegal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Molla Khan Kabuli vs Emperor on 6 June, 1933

He relies upon the decisions in - 'the Sessions Judge, Trichinopoly v. Arokia Padayachi' 2 Weir 262 (H) and-'Kasem Molla v. Emperor' AIR 1926 Cal 410 (I). In the earlier case a reference was made by the Sessions Judge to the High Court to quash a commitment after the accused was put on trial and he pleaded "not guilty" and was tried with the aid of assessors. Benson and Bhashyam Ayyangar JJ. took the view that it was too late to quash the commitment. But this decision does not say that if the original commitment was invalid in law and was void, it is not open to the High Court, when the matter comes up in appeal, after the proceedings are finally over before the Sessions Judge, in this appellate jurisdiction to set aside those proceedings.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Girishchandra Namadas And Ors. vs Emperor on 13 February, 1931

9. The question that arose before the Full Bench in - 'Girishchandra v. Emperor' AIR 1929 Cal 756 (PB) (K.) related to the power of a Judge of the High Court deputed by the Chief Justice to preside over a criminal sessions to quash a commitment under Section 215, Criminal P. C., where it was contended that such quashing can be done only on the appellate side of the High Court and not by the Judge sitting in sessions in the exercise of the ordinary original criminal jurisdiction. The learned Judges negatived that contention and held that such a quashing can be done.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

The Empress vs Shibo Behara on 20 January, 1881

Thongh the headnote in - 'Empress v. Shibo Behara' 6 Cal 584 (L), states that the High Court has power to quash an illegal commitment, at any stage of the case, it is evident from the facts of the case stated in the report that the matter came up before the learned Judges on a reference by the Sessions Judge as a result of an objection put forward by the accused before the Sessions Court after he had pleaded not guilty, on the ground that he had been prejudiced by the refusal to grant a judicial enquiry. Here again there is no question of an appeal.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1