Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)Section 6 in The Tamil Nadu Prize Schemes (Prohibition) Act, 1979 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Tamil Nadu Prize Schemes (Prohibition) Act, 1979 [Entire Act]
Section 81 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Laxmi Raj Shetty And Anr vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 April, 1988
20. A perusal of the order of the Revisional Court shows that it has heavily relied upon the news item appearing in the newspapers. The reasonings recorded by the Revisional Court that the principles laid down in 1988 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 633 (referred to supra) cannot be considered at the stage of taking cognizance is erroneous. As laid down in the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner / revision petitioner herein, it has been clearly laid down that the news item appearing in the newspapers are in the nature of hearsay evidence and the same will become legal evidence only if the persons connected therewith are examined before the Court. Since, admittedly, none connected with such publication of the news item has been examined, in this case, the news item cannot be treated as a legal evidence and therefore the Revisional Court has committed an error in relying upon the same in considering the question as to whether any prima facie case has been made out against the Revision Petitioner herein. There is nothing on record to show that knowing that the prize scheme conducted by the first accused is prohibited under the Act, the revision petitioner participated in the function and received the prize coupon. As rightly pointed out by the learned Magistrate, the second accused, as a customer of the hotel had gone and consumed food and the price of which exceeded Rs.50/- and as a consequence thereof, has received the prize coupon and that itself will not amount to aiding or abetting the first accused in the commission of the alleged offence. This aspect has not been properly considered by the Revisional Court and thereby has committed an illegality in directing the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence under Section 6 of the Act as against the revision petitioner / the second accused. Therefore, the order of the Revisional Court is liable to the set-aside and accordingly the same is set-aside. The above Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Krishnan & Anr vs Krishnaveni & Anr on 24 January, 1997
In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court, though a second revision is not maintainable, a petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under exceptional circumstance, is maintainable. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether such an exceptional circumstance exists in the present case to entertain the above Criminal Original Petition. In the said decision, the Apex Court has categorically laid down that if, on examination of the records, this Court finds that there is grave miscarriage of justice or abuse of the process of the courts or the required statutory procedure has not been complied with or there is failure of justice or order passed or sentence imposed by the Magistrate requires correction, it is but the duty of the High Court to have it corrected at the inception lest grave miscarriage of justice would ensue, therefore, to meet the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process that the High Court is preserved with inherent power and would be justified, under such circumstances, to exercise the inherent power and in an appropriate case even revisional power under Section 397 (1) read with Section 401 of the Code.