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

1998 Supreme(Kar) 469

M.P.CHINNAPPA
V. RANGA RAMU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
C.H.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, G.SURESH KUMAR, S.S.KOTI

( 1 ) THESE petitions are filed under S. 482, Cr. P. C. for quashing the order passed by the learned I ACCM, Bangalore City, taking cognizance of the offences and directing issue of process to this petitioner along with other accused persons. The petitioner is one of the accused persons in all these cases. Notice of these petitions was served on the learned S. P. P.

( 2 ) HEARD.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an advocate and notary public and the Court has committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence and directing issue of process to this petitioner. He also further submitted that the FIR does not disclose any offence said to have been committed by this petitioner. Therefore, he submitted that the Magistrate ought not to have issued summons to this petitioner. In support of his argument, he also drew my attention to S. 13 of the Notaries Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act' ). The learned S. P. P. fairly and rightly submitted that these petitions will have to be allowed in favour of the petitioner as the Courts could not have taken cognizance of the offence as contemplated under S. 13 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE brief facts of the case a





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