Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mohar Singh And Ors. vs State And Anr. on 27 February, 1953
Even if they did raise this question before him, the fact remains that they did not raise it while the case was pending in the Panchayati Adalat. It has been held by a bench of this Court in - Mohar Singh v. State' that the detect in the constitution of a bench of Panchayati Adalat caused by non-compliance of the provisions of Section 49 (2) of the Act is no" a jurisdictional defect and is waived if no objection is raised against it. Therefore when the applicants did not object to the bench that It was; improperly constituted, they are estopped from objecting to it now, after their conviction. If there was any irregularity committed in the constitution of the Bench it is waived.
Firm Dewan Sugar Mills vs The Government Of The State Of Uttar ... on 5 March, 1953
3. The third ground is that the charge or complaint was not explained to the applicants. Though there is an affidavit in support of this allegation, I place no reliance upon it because it is my experience that this allegation is often made frivolously and falsely. Moreover, the defect of not explaining the complaint to the accused in compliance with Rule 95 is one of procedure and not jurisdiction, and cannot justify the issue of certiorari. - 'See Firm Dewan Sugar Mills v. The -Government of U. P.' . If a Panchayati Adalat having Jurisdiction over the subject matter and the accused does not follow the correct procedure, that would be no ground for setting aside an order, which was within its jurisdiction to pass, by certiorari.
1