Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.25 seconds)
Jagannath Sahu vs State And Anr. on 15 April, 1965 cites

Narayan Rao vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 July, 1957

In a decision of the Supreme Court reported in Narayan Rao v. Slate of Andhra Pradesh. (S) AIR 1957 SC 737, their Lordships held that the word 'shall' occurring in Sub-section (4) of Section 178 is not mandatory but only directory and the omission to furnish the necessary documents to the accused will not have such a far-reaching effect as to render the proceedings wholly ineffective. Thus the provisions of Section 204(1-B) are merely directory but that does not mean that the Magistrate can with impunity disregard the statutory directions contained in Sub-section (1-B) as it is his duty to see that a copy of the complaint petition is supplied to the accused before he proceeds with the case. The learned Magistrate was however of the view that when the particulars of the offence were explained to the accused, and thereafter the case was posted, for hearing, it was not necessary that he should be supplied with a copy of the complaint petition. This, however, is not correct. In view of the provisions of Section 204(1-B) the accused must be supplied with a copy of the complaint petition so that he may be aware of the allegations against him, the Magistrate no doubt was of the opinion that no prejudice was caused to the accused. This however, cannot be taken to be correct. Since I have held above that the provisions of Section 204 (1B) are only directory and cannot vitiate the present proceedings, the Magistrate will now direct the furnishing of a copy of the complaint petition to the accused and proceed with the trial.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 74 - B P Sinha - Full Document
1   2 Next