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

2002 Supreme(Kar) 266

M.F.SALDANHA, N.K.PATIL
N. B. GUNGARAKOPPA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
C.H.JADHAV, D.L.MOHAN

( 1 ) THE learned single Judge of this Court Narayan J. vide order dated 18-1-2002 has referred the following three points to the Division Bench for adjudication :- (1) Whether Section 18 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter called "act" for short) is a bar for entertaining the petition under S. 438, Cr. P. C. ? (2) Whether the Courts entertaining the petitions under Section 438, Cr. P. C. can meticulously examine the material on record and attempt to find out a prima facie case under the provisions of the Act at this stage? and (3) Whether only the High Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition of this nature filed under Section 438, Cr. P. C. excluding the concurrent jurisdiction of the learned Sessions Judge ? the controversies with regard to the grant of anticipatory bail in relation to offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been an issue of serious debate despite the fact that Section 18 of the Act appears to place an embargo on the Courts that the provisions of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked in relation to accusations













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