Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Section 112 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 117 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Birdhaj Roy vs The State on 4 December, 1952
Such order which does not contain the substance of the information received has been held to be bad in a decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Birdhaj Roy v. State, AIR 1953 Cal 491, which has been referred to by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. It has been held therein that the order of the Magistrate not indicating the nature of the information received which induced him to take action under Section 107 of the Code is bad. No decision counter to it could be pointed out by the learned Counsel for the opposite party.
Amanat Ali vs Emperor on 23 November, 1928
In answer to this, learned Counsel for the petitioners has referred to an earlier decision of this Court in the case of Amanat Ali v. Emperor AIR 1929 Pat 67. In that case also against the very initial order drawing up a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code and calling upon the other side to show cause, a revision was filed and that was allowed on the ground that specifications as required under the law were not indicated in the order, that is to say, the petition in revision was entertained against the initial order calling upon the other side to show cause. This decision is counter to the aforesaid decision in the case of Zahurruddin, Criminal Revn. No. 351 of 1954 D/- 18-11-1954 (Pat), referred to by learned Counsel for the opposite party, in which the revision was characterised as premature at that stage. The decision in the case of Amanat A1S AIR 1929 Pat 67 was not referred to in that decision, which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the opposite party. The decision in the case of Amanat Ali being an earlier decision and having not been overruled by a Bench decision of this Court has to be followed. Therefore, I hold that the present revision application is not premature.
1