Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.20 seconds)Section 195 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The State Of Bombay vs Nilkanth Shripad Bhave And Anr. on 29 June, 1953
Ram Sagar Singh v. Chandrika Singh (1); and In re Ramaswami
(2) The view taken in the Bombay High Court is that the High
Court has no jurisdiction to expunge passages from the
judgment of an inferior court which has not been brought
before it in regular appeal or revision; but an application
under s. 561-A Cr. P. C. is maintainable and in a proper
case the High Court has inherent jurisdiction, even though
no appeal or revision is preferred to it, to correct
judicially the observations made by pointing out that they
were not justified, or were without foundation, or were
wholly wrong or improper I see State v. Nilkanth Shripad
Bhave (3).
Article 136 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 154 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Emperor vs Khwaja Nazir Ahmed on 17 October, 1944
It is now well settled that the section confers no new
powers on the High Court. It merely safeguards all existing
inherent powers possessed by a High Court necessary (among
other purposes) to secure the ends of justice. The
section provides that those powers which the
court inherently possesses shall be preserved lest it be
considered that the only powers possessed by the -court are
those expressly conferred by the Code and that no inherent
powers had survived the passing of the Code (see Jairam Das
v.Emperor (1), and Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad (2)), We shall
presently deal with the question whether the High Court has
inherent power to expunge the remarks made by it or by a
lower court to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Assuming that the
High Court has such power, the question now before us is,
can the State Government invoke this inherent jurisdiction
of the High Court? The learned judge of the High Court gave
two reasons for his finding that the State Government had no
locus standi to make an application under s. 561-A Cr. P.
C. The first reason he gave was that the State Government
could not be said to have been aggrieved by the observations
made by him. The second reason he gave was that the State
represented the executive as well as the judiciary and
therefore it would be anomalous if it made an application
under s. 561-A Cr. P. C., for such an application would be
by the State through its executive to expunge remarks made
by it as the judiciary.