Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)
Sudhindra Nath Dutt vs The State on 5 July, 1957 cites

Rameshwar Bhartia vs The State Of Assam on 23 October, 1952

See Rameshwar Bhartia v. State of Assam, (B). It can hardly be gainsaid that an authority, approached for sanctioning the prosecution and according such sanction, has to apply its mind to the facts of the case as they appear at that stage and has also to form at least an opinion that it did not seem that it would be useless to prosecute the accused because, on the materials, it could not be said that no prosecution possibly succeed. If even a Magistrate whose mind is already committed to the view, that, on the primary facts of the case, as they appear, a prosecution is likely to succeed and ought to be launched is not to be held to be personally interested and debarred from holding file trial, I find It difficult to hold that such concern as the learned trial Judge had had previously with the present case made him personally interested in the case within the meaning of Section 550 of the Code Of Criminal Procedure. According to the Supreme Court, there is a distinction between a passive interest and an active interest and it is only in the latter case that the disqualification mentioned in Section 550 arises. It is also the view of that Court that to give sanction for a prosecution is not to take an active interest therein or evince such Interest. The present case is not even one where Mr. ' Sen had himself given sanction for the prosecution of the appellant and it would appear that in that regard it is a weaker case than the cases decided by the Full Bench of this Court and the Supreme Court to which I have just referred. The concern which he actually had with the case appears to have been more or less of a formal character and, therefore, it cannot be said that he must have formed some opinion, adverse to the appellant or must at least have developed an attitude of mind unfavourable to him by reason of the connection he had with the settlement of the draft of the order of sanction, the constitution of the Special Court, the allotment of the cases to that Court and the procurement of accommodation for the Court's sittings. I would, therefore, hold that it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge was incompetent in law to hold the trial by reason of the previous connection he had with the case or that the trial held by him was in law invalid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 37 - N C Aiyar - Full Document

Queen-Empress vs Sarat Chandra Rakhit on 15 July, 1889

23. So far as the strict language of the section goes and so far as any guiding principle can be ascertained from the decided cases, it does not seem to me that the effect of Section 558, as applied to the facts of this case, could be to incapacitate the learned Judge as a matter of law for holding the trial. It is true that "personally interested" does not mean privately interested. A Judge or a Magistrate may have no pecuniary or private interest in a case, he may nevertheless become interested in the success of the prosecution in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, it appears to me -- but I again make the qualification that I am looking at the matter from the point of view of the strict law -- that merely because the trial Judge had previously, as Legal Remembrancer, settled the draft of the order according sanction or merely because he had had some part in allotting the case for the purpose of a previous trial to some other tribunal or merely because he had arranged for the accommodation of that tribunal, it cannot be said that he had become personally interested in the sense of becoming interested in the success of the prosecution. It was held by a Full Bench of this Court that a District Judge might accord sanction for the trial of a particular person under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and might subsequently try the case himself as the Sessions Judge of the district without violating the provisions of Section 487 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; see the case of Queen Empress v. Sarat Chandra Rakhit, ILR 16 Cal 766 (A). Quite recently it was held by the Supreme Court that a Magistrate, sanctioning the prosecution of a person under the provisions of a special law was not debarred by Section 556 of the Code from holding the trial of the accused.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1