Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)
Richmondd Global School vs State on 7 December, 2023 cites

Subramanium Sethuraman vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 17 September, 2004

No. 2/2020) decided on April 16, 2021 has also categorically ruled that the judgements of the court in Adalat Prasad (supra) and Subramanium (supra) had interpreted law correctly and reiterated that there is no inherent power of the trial courts to review or CR No. 496/2023 Richmondd Global School Vs. State and Anr Page No 11 of 13 recall or to reviews of summons. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Court on its own motion vs. State judgment delivered on 20.04.2022 has categorically ruled that 'the Court of a Magistrate do not have the power to discharge the accused upon his appearance in the court in a summoned trial case based upon complaint in general and particularly in a case under Section 138 of the NI Act, once cognizance has already been taken and process under Section 204 issued.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 266 - Full Document

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

The observation in the case of K. M. Mathew (supra) that no specific provision of law is required for recalling an erroneous order of issue of process was held to be contrary to the scheme of the Code in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and Others9. It was observed therein that the order taking cognizance can only be subject matter of a proceeding under Section 482 of the Code as subordinate criminal courts have no inherent power. There is also no power of review conferred on the Trial Courts by the Code.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 900 - Full Document

M/S Meters And Instruments Private ... vs Kanchan Mehta on 5 October, 2017

20. Section 143 of the Act mandates that the provisions of summary trial of the Code shall apply "as far as may be" to trials of complaints under Section 138. Section 258 of the Code empowers the Magistrate to stop the proceedings at any stage for reasons to be recorded in writing and pronounce a judgment of acquittal in any summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint. Section 258 of the Code is not applicable to a summons case instituted on a complaint. Therefore, Section 258 cannot come into play in respect of the complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act. The judgment of this Court in Meters and Instruments (supra) in so far as it conferred power on the Trial Court to discharge an accused is not good law. Support taken from the words "as far as may be" in Section 143 of the Act is inappropriate. The words "as far as may be" in Section 143 are used only in respect of applicability of Sections 262 to 265 of the Code and the summary procedure to be followed for trials under Chapter XVII. Conferring power on the court by reading certain words into provisions is impermissible. A judge must not rewrite a statute, neither to enlarge nor to contract it. Whatever temptations the statesmanship of policy- making might wisely suggest, construction must eschew interpolation and evisceration. He must not read in by way of creation12. The Judge's duty is to interpret and apply the law, not to change it to meet the Judge's idea of what justice requires13. The court cannot add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there.
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 753 - A K Goel - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs Deoki Nandan Aggarwal on 4 September, 1991

14 Union of India v. Deoki Nandan Aggarwal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 above, this Court, in its anxiety to cut down delays in the disposal of complaints under Section 138, has applied Section 258 to hold that the Trial Court has the power to discharge the accused even for reasons other than payment of compensation. However, amendment to the Act empowering the Trial Court to reconsider/recall summons may be considered on the recommendation of the Committee constituted by this Court which shall look into this aspect as well...
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 430 - Full Document
1   2 Next