Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.22 seconds)Section 202 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 [Entire Act]
Section 204 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 202 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Abdullah Bhat vs Ghulam Mohd. on 25 October, 1971
WP4979-2019.DOC
"29. Coming to Section 204(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
I must say that the non-compliance of this provision does
not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate either to issue
process or to try the case. This view has been taken by the
Apex Court in Noorkhan v. State of Rajasthan', Madhaorao
Pandurang v. Yeshwant; Abdullah Bhat v. Ghulam Mohd.
Wani', and Shashi Ndir v. R.C. Mehta (supra). The
procedural laws are hand maid of justice and the question
of prejudice is of paramount consideration in respect of
breach of procedural provisions. Therefore, even if it was to
be held that the provisions of Section 204(2) are mandatory,
that, by itself, would not vitiate the issue of process or the
jurisdiction of the Court and where the matter is at the
initial stage, directions can be given to furnish the copy of
list of witnesses, if any, before the proceedings actually
commenced. The stage of the proceedings is relevant to
determine the prejudice, if any, caused to the accused. In
the case under consideration, the substantive proceedings
had not yet started. Therefore, in the circumstances,
directions to the complainant to supply copy of witnesses, if
any, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the
copy of the order by the trial Court would be considered as
sufficient compliance of Section 204(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973."
Shashi Nair vs R.C. Mehta And Ors. on 16 October, 1981
WP4979-2019.DOC
"29. Coming to Section 204(2) of Criminal Procedure Code,
I must say that the non-compliance of this provision does
not affect the jurisdiction of the Magistrate either to issue
process or to try the case. This view has been taken by the
Apex Court in Noorkhan v. State of Rajasthan', Madhaorao
Pandurang v. Yeshwant; Abdullah Bhat v. Ghulam Mohd.
Wani', and Shashi Ndir v. R.C. Mehta (supra). The
procedural laws are hand maid of justice and the question
of prejudice is of paramount consideration in respect of
breach of procedural provisions. Therefore, even if it was to
be held that the provisions of Section 204(2) are mandatory,
that, by itself, would not vitiate the issue of process or the
jurisdiction of the Court and where the matter is at the
initial stage, directions can be given to furnish the copy of
list of witnesses, if any, before the proceedings actually
commenced. The stage of the proceedings is relevant to
determine the prejudice, if any, caused to the accused. In
the case under consideration, the substantive proceedings
had not yet started. Therefore, in the circumstances,
directions to the complainant to supply copy of witnesses, if
any, within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the
copy of the order by the trial Court would be considered as
sufficient compliance of Section 204(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973."
Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India, Min. Of Law. on 13 May, 2016
27. Intention to cause harm to the reputation of the
complainant is the linchpin of the offence of defamation. A
profitable reference in this context can be made to a judgment of
17/22
WP4979-2019.DOC
the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs.
Union of India8, wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:
Vijay Dhanuka Etc vs Najima Mamtaj Etc on 27 March, 2014
In view of the
judgments of this Court in Vijay Dhanuka (supra),
Abhijit Pawar (supra) and Birla Corporation (supra),
the inquiry to be held by the Magistrate before
issuance of summons to the accused residing outside
the jurisdiction of the court cannot be dispensed with.