Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Superintendent And Remembrancer Of ... vs Abani Kumar Banerjee on 9 May, 1950
Explaining the expression "take cognizance" as it occurs in Section 190, the Supreme Court quoted with approval the observations of Mr. Justice Dass Gupta in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs of West Bengal v. Abani Kumar Banerjee AIR 1950 Calcutta 437, to the effect that before a Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance of an offence under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code, he must not only have applied his mind to the contents of the petition but he must have done so for the propose of proceeding in a particular way as indicated in the subsequent provisions of Chapter XV dealing with complaints of which a Magistrate takes cognizance. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate applied his mined not for the purpose of proceeding under Chapter XV of the Code, but for ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code He made it expressly clear that he was not taking cognizance of the offence himself. The warrants of arrest were issued by the learned Magistrate for the purpose of investigation at the instance of the Investigating Officer. It was made clear by the Supreme Court in the cited case that by issuing such warrants for the purpose of investigation, the Magistrate cannot said to have taken cognizance of the offence.
Jiwat Ram And Anr. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 7 October, 1977
These two authorities were considered by this Court in Jiwat Ram v. State of Rajasthan 1978 CrLJ 693, but not relied on. This Court preferred the contrary view, in as much as it held that the police are invested with statutory powers of investigation into cognizable offences & that the High Court will not interfere in the exercise of its inherent powers wider Section 482 of the Code in the investigation of a cognizable offence by the police.
S.N. Sharma vs Bipen Kumar Tiwari And Ors on 10 March, 1970
12. Reference may then be made to S.N. Sharma v. Bipen Kumar , in which the Supreme Court held that the power of the police to investigate any cognizable offence is uncontrolled by the Magistrate. Dealing with the argument, like the one which was raised by petitioner's learned Counsel in the instant case, that giving such wide and uncontrolled powers of investigation to the police would give them a handle to engineer a false report of a cognizable offence against an innocent person and then harass him by carrying on a prolonged investigation of the offence, the Supreme Court observed that though the Code does give the police unfettered powers to investigate the cases where they suspect that congnizable offence has been committed, in appropriate cases an aggrieved person can always seek a remedy by invoking the power of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution Incidentally, Kudal J in making his observations quoted above, could as well be having in mind these observations of the Supreme Court.