Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.21 seconds)
Chimanlal Manekkal vs Emperor on 23 February, 1927 cites

Satish Chandra Mitra vs Emperor On The Complaint Of Manmotha ... on 20 August, 1920

5. I agree. I think that the express terms of subs. (2) of Section 264 clearly show that it cannot be laid down that, if a Magistrate takes rough notes for his own purposes, such rough notes properly form part of the record; and decisions like those in Satish Chandra Mitra v. Emperor 61 Ind. Cas. 846 : 48 C. 280 : 32 C.L.J. 451 : 22 Cr. L.J. 462 seem to me to be going beyond the provisions of the Code, when applied to a case like the present. There is some justification for saying that such notes cannot be destroyed in cases which fall under Section 355, but that section does not apply in the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Namdeo Lakman vs Emperor on 1 October, 1924

Even if no brief statement is given it may amount to a mere irregularity which can be cured under Section 537, Criminal Procedure Code: see Namdeo Lakman v. Emperor 85 Ind. Cas. 146 : 26 Bom. L.R. 1236; A.R. 1925 Bom. 138 : 26 Cr. L.J. 466. In cases coming under Section 264 where an appeal lies Clause (1) says that such Magistrate shall, before passing sentence record a judgment embodying the substance of the evidence and, also the particulars mentioned in Section 263, and Clause (3) says that such judgment shall be the only record in cases coming within this section. In cases falling under Clauses (6) to (m) of Section 260, Criminal Procedure Code, where evidence is recorded under Section 355, different considerations would prevail but Section 355 does not apply to the present case. Therefore, even if rough notes of evidence had been taken by the Magistrate in this case for the purpose of embodying the substance of the evidence in the judgment, they need not form part of the record under Clause (2) of Section 264, and a distinction is made in Section 265 between records made under Section 263 and judgment recorded under Section 264.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1