Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.20 seconds)
Gurmeet Singh vs State on 29 September, 2010 cites

Emperor vs Yakub Ali And Ors. on 15 December, 1916

7. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon Emperor v Ali 16 PWR 1910 wherein the Sessions Judge had directed the police to make further inquiry under Section 156 Crl. MC 3640.09& Crl.Rev.P. 248.09 Page 5 Of 8 Cr.P.C and the Court had observed that the powers under Section 156 Cr.P.C were available only to a Magistrate and not to the Court of Sessions. I consider that this case is not applicable to the facts of the present case since in the present case the learned Sessions Judge had not entertained an application under Section 156 Cr.P.C but informed the facts as were revealed to him during trial to the authorities and directed for registration of an FIR on the basis of those facts. The petitioner also relied upon State of U.P.v Mahender Narain 1964 SC 703. In this case, while hearing an appeal, the Ld. High Court Judge had made disparaging remarks in respect of entire Police force and made observations that there was not even a single lawless group in the whole of the country whose record of crimes comes anywhere near the record of group which is known as Indian Police Force. The Supreme Court while expunging the remarks in that case observed that the case before the High Court Judge related only to one police officer Mohd. Naim and the learned Judge was not justified in making generalized remarks against entire police force. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge had not made remarks against entire Delhi police but has made observations only in respect of conduct of the petitioner and, therefore, this judgment rather goes against the petitioner because the Supreme Court has observed that a Judge can always make remarks about the police officer whose conduct appears blameworthy during trial of the case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1   2 Next