Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 29 (0.24 seconds)
Mohima Ranjan Roy And Ors. vs The State on 30 May, 1966 cites

G.V. Raman And Ors. vs Emperor on 19 February, 1929

6. We have already indicated the facts that no prayer for de novo trial was made but by the order of the Court as quoted before, a de novo enquiry was directed to be made. In the concluding portion of the judgment his Lordship however said that the learned Magistrate should proceed in accordance with law by following the provisions of Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In any event, this Single Bench decision clearly goes to show that a principle of law has been laid down to the effect that de novo enquiry should be started in cases which are dealt with by the Magistrate under Section 347 of the Code. Now we have to examine whether in view of this Court's decision we are required, in the present Rule to direct the learned Magistrate that his order for cross-examination of the witnesses as passed on 19-1-66 should be set aside and he be directed to embark upon a fresh and de novo enquiry. Mr. Justice Debabrata Mookerjee appears to have followed a Calcutta decision in the case of G.V. Raman v. Emperor . Their Lordships made an observation as follows in that decision:
Calcutta High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next