SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1694

S.P.KURDUKAR, M.K.MUKHERJEE
Keshav Lal Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent


ORDER

Special leave granted.

2. On a report lodged by Jnanendra Parchchya, Anu Mandal Padadhikari, Gooda, a case under Section 31 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1950 ( Act for short) was registered against Keshav Lal Thakur, the appellant herein, by Thakur Gangti Police Station and on completion of investigation a report in final form was submitted praying for his discharge on the ground that the offence was a non-cognizable one. On that report the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda, took cognizance as in his view, a prima facie case was made out against the appellant; and aggrieved thereby he moved a petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. before the Patna High Court wherein he contended, inter alia, that the cognizance was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. A learned Judge of the High Court, who entertained the petition, ultimately dismissed the same being of the view that under Section 473 Cr.P.C. cognizance could be taken beyond the period of limitation. The above order of the High Court is under challenge before us in this appeal.

3. We need not go into the question whether in the facts of the instant case the above view of the High Court is proper or not for the im



Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top