Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)The Ahmedabad City Courts Act, 1961
Section 194 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 319 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Ratilal Bhanji Mithani vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 28 September, 1978
"Sub-section (1) of Section 409 empowers a Sessions Judge to withdraw any case or appeal from or recall any case or appeal which he has made over to any Assistant" Judge or Chief Judicial Magistrate subordinate to him. However, reading Sub-section (2) of Section 409, it becomes abundantly clear that the Sessions Judge is empower to recall any case or appeal, which he has made over to any Additional Sessions Judge, only before the trial of the case or the hearing of the appeal has commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge. In other words, at any time before commencement of trial of a case, hearing of an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, power to withdraw or recall any case or appeal is vested in the Sessions Judge. However, after commencement of the trial of a case or hearing of an appeal, such a power is not left with the Sessions Judge. In this case, it is not in dispute that the charge has already been framed by the third Additional Sessions Judge on an application directing the investigating agency to produce certain evidence. That order has also been partly complied with. Therefore, in the present case, the trial had already commenced when the charge was framed. It was, therefore, not open to the Sessions Judge to withdraw the said case from the file of third Additional Sessions Judge and to make over the same to Additional Sessions Judge. The Supreme Court in Ratital Bhanji Mifhani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 94 has held that the trial in a warrant case starts with the framing of charge; prior to it, the proceedings are only an inquiry. Therefore, exercise of power under Section 409 of the Code by a Sessions Judge after the commencement of the trial is not permissible. In this case, as the trial had already commenced with the framing of charge, the learned Sessions Judge had, thereafter, no power or authority under Section 409 of the Code to recall the case from the file of the third Additional Sessions Judge."
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 227 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 397 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 465 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gambhirsinhji Bhavsinhji Padheriya vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 1993
17. Then we can turn to the third decision of this Court. It has been incidentally recorded in the case of Gambhirsing Bhavsinhji Padheriya v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1993 (1) GLH 433 : 1993 (1) GLR 649. Almost similar principles had been enunciated in the said decision (Coram : A. N. Divecha, J.), and the said decision has been rendered on 11-2-1993. In Para 13 of the said judgment, the learned single Judge of this Court clearly observed that the learned Sessions Judge, named Shri V. C. Mandalia, was not shown to be divested of the powers to conduct cases under the Act. In that view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge could not have withdrawn the Sessions Case in question from the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, named Shri V. C. Mandalia.