Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)Section 438 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
S.C. Jain vs State Of Haryana And Anr on 4 November, 1985
In support of the said contention, he relied upon the Judgments in Chandramouleshwar v. Patna High Court (3 supra); M.S. Jain v. State of Haryana (4 supra) and in A Panduranga Rao v. State of A.P., .
Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980
29. With reference to Column 12 of the attestation form, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner contended that his client was never arrested factually and, therefore, the answer given by him in Column 12 as "NEVER" is factually correct and what all the attestation form is seeking is a factual information and not a deemed arrest arrived at by invoking legal fiction. Whatever may be the factual position, the interpretation put upon Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Full Court is legally correct and it is based on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh v. State of Punjab (2 supra). Therefore, it is not possible for us to say that the view arrived at on 4-10-1993 at the meeting of the Full Court as communicated by the Registrar (Admn.) of the High Court on 6-10-1993 to the Government is legally not sustainable. Having regard to the same, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Chandramouleshwar Prasad vs Patna High Court & Ors on 7 October, 1969
In support of the said contention, he relied upon the Judgments in Chandramouleshwar v. Patna High Court (3 supra); M.S. Jain v. State of Haryana (4 supra) and in A Panduranga Rao v. State of A.P., .
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
A. Panduranga Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 2 September, 1975
In support of the said contention, he relied upon the Judgments in Chandramouleshwar v. Patna High Court (3 supra); M.S. Jain v. State of Haryana (4 supra) and in A Panduranga Rao v. State of A.P., .
Chandra Mohan vs State Of Uttar Pradesh & Ors on 8 August, 1966
If in any particular case, the State Government finds it difficult to accept the recommendations of the High Court and has good and weighty reasons in support of the same, it should communicate its views to the High Court and seek the views of the High Court thereon. If, in such circumstances, the High Court is convinced that there are good and weighty reasons for the objections on the part of the State Government, it will reconsider the matter and communicate its views to the State Government. Efficient and proper judicial administration being the main object of judicial appointments, there should not be any difficulty in arriving at consensus between the High Court and the State Government and the problem should be approached in a detached manner. The above principles have been laid down by the Supreme Court in Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., AIR 1966 SC 1987 and M.M. Gupta v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, .