Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.35 seconds)Section 108 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mt. Haidri Begam vs Jawad Ali Shah on 4 January, 1934
(8) A Division Bench of Allahabad High Court (Mukherji and King JJ.) in Mt. Haidri Begum v. Jawwad Ah Shah , also referred to the amendment in the Letters Patent mentioned above and held that no appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent was maintainable from an order passed on an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 107 in Government of India Act, 1935 [Entire Act]
S.A.L. Narayan Row And Anr. vs Ishwarlal Bhagwandas And Anr. on 7 May, 1965
(10) We have given the matter our consideration and are of the view that though the trial of persons alleged to have committed crimes is the main function of the criminal court when they act in exercise of their criminal jurisdiction, that is not their only function. The Courts in exercise of criminal jurisdiction no doubt deal with the trial of persons alleged to have committed offences but they also deal with a number of other matters connected with crimes including those relating to prevention of crime. A criminal proceeding, as observed by Shah, J., speaking for the majority, in the case of S.A.L. Naravan Row and another v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas and another , is ordinarily one in which if carried to its conclusion it may result in the imposition of sentences such as death, imprisonment, fine or forfeiture of property. It also includes proceedings in which in the larger interest of the State, orders to prevent apprehended breach of the peace, orders to bind down persons who are a danger to the maintenance of peace and order, or orders aimed at preventing vagrancy are contemplated to be passed. It would, therefore, not be correct to say that a Court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction deals only with trial of persons alleged to have committed offences under the law. The object of criminal law is to preserve law and order, and with that end to bring the offenders to book and prevent breach of law Proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are essentially of a preventive nature because they are designed to prevent breach of peace in cases of dispute about immovable property. As such they find a rightful place in the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in our opinion, deal with matters which pertain to exercise of criminal jurisdiction. We, therefore, have no doubt that when a learned Judge of the High Court passes an order in a criminal revision against an order made in course of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the order is made by him in exercise criminal jurisdiction. As such the appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent would not be maintainable.
Section 145 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Shyam Sundar Halwasiya vs Jodhraj Halwasiya on 19 November, 1947
The words "in exercise of criminal jurisdiction" have a much wider connotation and amplitude than the words "in criminal trial". The result of the above amendment is that in cases where there is no sentence or order made in a criminal trial but the order is made in exercise of criminal jurisdiction the right of Letters Patent Appeal would be excluded against the order of a Single Judge. In a Bench decision of Calcutta High Court (Harries C.J. and B. K. Mukherjea, J.) in the case of Shyam Sundar Halwasiya v. Jodhraj Halwasiya , Mukherjea, J., with whom Harries C.J. agreed, observed : "(6)It would be pertinent to point out here that in the Letters Patent as it stood before the amendment of 11-3-1919 the expression used in Clause 15 was 'sentence or order passed or made in any criminal trial' and not an order made in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction'. As the orders in contempt cases arising out of civil proceedings cannot ordinarily be said to have been made in course of a criminal trial, it was held by sargent C.J. in 7 Born. 5 that an appeal would lie against an order for attachment for contempt under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as it then stood. Beaumont, C.J. was apparantly not properly informed when in commenting on this decision in a subsequent case reported in 57 Born. 286 he observed that the exact wording of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent was overlooked by Sargent C.J. in the previous case. It is clear, however, that the amendment of the Letters Patent in the year 1919 deliberately changed the expression, and the expression 'criminal jurisdiction' apparently has a wider connotation than a 'criminal trial as used in Clause 25 of the Letters Patent".
1