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

1993 Supreme(AP) 21

MOTILAL B.NAIK, M.N.RAO
Y. Chendrasekhara Rao – Appellant
Versus
Y. V. Kamala Kumari – Respondent


M. N. RAO, J.

( 1 ) A learned Single Judge has referred these matters for consideration by a Division Bench as there is divergence of judicial opinion on the question as to whether it is obligatory that an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 should first be filed in the Court of Session ?

( 2 ) ALL these petitions are sought to be filed under Section 438 seeking anticipatory bail. The Registry, at the stage of numbering, inter alia, has taken an objection as to the maintainability on the ground that the petitioners did not approach the Court of Session. When the matters came up for consideration of the objections raised by the Registry, a learned single Judge on 15-12-1992, after noticing the legal position that the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Mohanlal v. Prem Chand, AIR 1980 HP 36 has taken the view that it is for the petitioner to move either the Court of Session or the High Court under Section 438 but the Karnataka High Court in K. C. Iyya v. State of Karnataka, 1985 Cri LJ 214 (Karnataka), the Allahabad High Court in Onkar Nath v. State, 1976 Cri LJ 1142 (Allahabad), and the Gujarat High Court in Rameshchandra v. State of Gujarat, 1988 Cri LJ






























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