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

1971 Supreme(SC) 264

A. N. RAY, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, S. M. SIKRI
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
B. N. Ananti Padmanabiah – Respondent


Judgment

RAY, J:- These three appeals are by certificate from the judgement and order dated 31 March, 1969 of the High Court of Assam and Nagaland.

2. These three appeals arise out of special cases Nos. 16 and 16-A of 1964 pending in the Court of the Special Judge, Gauhati. In Special Case No. 16 of 1964 Major J.S. Prosad, B.N. Ananthapadamanabhiah and Motiur Rahman were Charged under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 5(2), 5 (1) (c) and 5(1) (d) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 467/471 of the Indian Penal Code. In special Case No. 16-A of 1964 charges were framed against S. Chartterjee and Motiur Rahman under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Ss. 5(2), 5 (1) (c) and 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The appellants filed three separate criminal revision petitions in the High Court. Four contentions were advanced before the High Court. First, that the Special Judge at Gauhati had no jurisdiction to try offences investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment as the Delhi Special Establishment Act was not extended to NEFA. Secondly, that under Section 6 of

















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