Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.23 seconds)
Suresh Goyal vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 7 March, 2015 cites

Adalat Prasad vs Rooplal Jindal & Ors on 25 August, 2004

15. Another contention of Ld. Counsel for the revisionist is that the impugned order is an interlocutory order. Ld. Counsel has relied upon case law 1984 CRI.L.J. 1680 wherein it has been held that 'Criminal Procedure Code, (2 of 1974), S.397 - Interlocutory order in revision - Order against which revision filed already executed - Question of suspending such order does not arise'. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel that the order under challenge has been executed and it cannot be reversed. He also relied upon case law Adalat Prasad Vs. Rooplal Jindal & ors. In this respect.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 900 - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhooraji & Ors on 24 August, 2001

also drawn the attention of the court on section 200 to 203 and submitted that the process has already been served upon the petitioner on 21.07.2014 and it cannot be denied by the revisionist that he did not receive the process on the said date. It is submitted that the Magistrate is not required to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and it is not necessary to mention all the sections of offence in the order or on the process or summons. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. MM does not suffer from any illegality. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2 has further drawn the attention of the court on Chapter XXXV of Cr.PC which deals with irregularities which may or may not vitiate the proceedings and he has drawn the attention on Sec.460 and 461 and stated that the Ld. MM has rightly summoned the revisionist in the present case. Ld. Counsel has further drawn the attention of the court on Sec.462 and 465 of the Code and relied upon case law State of M.P. Vs. Booraji & Ors. (2001) (7) SCC 679 wherein the true essence of the expression 'failure of justice' was highlighted and case law CBI Vs. V.K.Sehgal, Appeal (Crl.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 148 - Full Document

Central Bureau Of Investigation Etc vs V.K. Sehgal And Anr on 8 October, 1999

also drawn the attention of the court on section 200 to 203 and submitted that the process has already been served upon the petitioner on 21.07.2014 and it cannot be denied by the revisionist that he did not receive the process on the said date. It is submitted that the Magistrate is not required to go deep into the probative value of the material on record and it is not necessary to mention all the sections of offence in the order or on the process or summons. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. MM does not suffer from any illegality. Ld. counsel for the respondent no.2 has further drawn the attention of the court on Chapter XXXV of Cr.PC which deals with irregularities which may or may not vitiate the proceedings and he has drawn the attention on Sec.460 and 461 and stated that the Ld. MM has rightly summoned the revisionist in the present case. Ld. Counsel has further drawn the attention of the court on Sec.462 and 465 of the Code and relied upon case law State of M.P. Vs. Booraji & Ors. (2001) (7) SCC 679 wherein the true essence of the expression 'failure of justice' was highlighted and case law CBI Vs. V.K.Sehgal, Appeal (Crl.)
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 89 - Full Document
1   2 Next