under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. barely on the protest
application filed on behalf of the defendants in the suit.
2] The applicant ... dealing with the civil proceedings and not criminal complaint.
The protest application filed by the defendant to traverse the claim of
plaintiffs/other side
made an application on the 10th of May 1952 purporting to be an application under section 19 of the Act. This application was in respect ... issue of a public notice when a person makes an application under protest and seeks a decision from the Assistant Charity Commissioner that the property
compensatibn under protest orally and the oral protest while receiving the compensation shall not disentitle the claimant from making any application for reference under Section ... that for want of any particular mode of protest, oral protest is valid and the application under Section 18 for making reference is maintainable
that
the claimants who receive the compensation
under protest and who make application under
Section 18(1) , alone are entitled to seek a
reference; third ... observed that the
claimants who received compensation under protest
and who make an application under section 18 are
alone are entitled to seek reference
person who has received the amount otherwise than under protest shall be entitled to make application for reference under section 18 . In other words ... Viewed thus therefore it must be held that irrespective of protest or no protest, persons interesed are entitled to get compensation re-determined when applications
with or without protest. In case he receives the amount under protest, he is entitled under law to lay an application for reference under Section ... stated that in that case also the compensation was accepted without protest, the protest was lodged long after the acceptance of the compensation
that for want of any particular mode of protest, oral protest is valid and the application under section 18 for making reference is maintainable. Paragraphs ... particular mode of protest and such an oral protest is a valid protest under law. The assertion that oral protest is made by the petitioner
though Defendant
No.1 may contend that he has filed some protest application to
Defendant No.2-APMC, stating that he has not executed such
before the commencement of the trial the petitioner put in an application, protesting that he had never made any speeches for the purpose of disseminating
point of locus of
the complainants who filed an application in the Session
Court, firstly submitted that the de facto complainant has
the locus standi ... Criminal Procedure
Code but he also has locus standi for making protest
application against the tainted and defective investigation.
In support of the said submission
