Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 37 (0.29 seconds)

Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr vs State Of A.P on 8 October, 2003

51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 39] which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 74 - Full Document

Japani Sahoo vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 July, 2007

51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 39] which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 49 - Cited by 304 - C K Thakker - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next