Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 38 (0.34 seconds)Section 82 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 83 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Madhu Limaye & Anr vs Ved Murti & Ors on 28 October, 1970
In the Punjab & Haryana case, the High
30
Court has relied on judgment of this Court in
Madhu Limaye Vs. Ved Murti (supra) and held that
Section 88 shall be applicable since accused
were not arrested under Section 19 of PMLA
during investigation and were not taken into
custody for taking cognizance. What the Punjab
& Haryana High Court missed, is that this Court
in the same paragraph had observed “that shows
that the person must be a free agent whether to
appear or not”. When accused was issued warrant
of arrest to appear in the Court and proceeding
under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. has been
initiated, he cannot be held to be a free agent
to appear or not to appear in the Court. We
thus are of the view that the Punjab & Haryana
High Court has not correctly applied Section 88
in the aforesaid case.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Jogendra Singh on 4 March, 1963
In State
of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jogendra Singh (supra),
17
this Court had occasion to consider the use of
word ‘may’ in Rule 4(2) of the Uttar Pradesh
Disciplinary Proceedings (Administrative
Tribunal) Rules, 1947. In the above regard, in
Paragraph 8 following has been stated:-
Court On Its Own Motion vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 January, 2004
The subsequent judgment
of Delhi High Court in Sanjay Chaturvedi Vs.
23
State, 132 (2006) Delhi Law Times 692 was also a
case where earlier judgment of Delhi High Court
in Court on Its own Motion Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation (supra) was followed. The said
case also does not in any manner adopted the
interpretation of Section 88 as contended by the
appellant.