Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)M. Muthuswamy vs Special Police Establishment on 17 August, 1984
We are unable to agree with the said view of the
learned single Judge as the same was taken under the
impression that a decision to order inquiry into the
offence itself would prima facie amount to holding him, if
not guilty, very near to a finding of his guilt. We have
pointed out earlier that the purpose of conducting
preliminary inquiry is not for that purpose at all. The
would be accused is not necessary for the court to decide
the question of expediency in the interest of justice that
an inquiry should be held. We have come across decisions
of some other High Courts which held the view that the
persons against whom proceedings were instituted have no
such right to participate in the preliminary inquiry. {vide
M. Muthuswamy vs. Special Police Establishment (AIR 1985
Criminal Law Journal 420)}.
Nimmakanyala Audi Narrayanammam vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 24 April, 1969
Learned senior counsel cited the decision of a single
Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Nimmakayala
Audi Narrayanamma vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1970
A.P. 119) in which learned judge observed that it is just
and proper that the court issues a show cause notice to the
would be accused as to why they should not be prosecuted.
This was said while interpreting the scope of Section 476
of the old Code of Criminal Procedure (which corresponds
with Section 340 of the present Code). The following is
the main reasoning of the learned single Judge:
Section 23 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
Section 340 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
1