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

1976 Supreme(Kar) 206

K.JAGANNATHA SHETTY, C.HONNIAH
SHIVARAJVEERAPPA PURAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.

( 1 ) THESE petitions raise a common question relating to be the validity of the order made by the principal Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haveri, under Section 323 of the Code of criminal Procedure.

( 2 ) THE matter arises in this way: the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 477-A and 420 read with Section 34 of the indian P. C. The learned Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was filed, committed the accused to the Court of Session to take their trial in view of the gravity of the offences and the maximum punishment that is provided thereunder.

( 3 ) IN our opinion, the learned Magistrate was wholly in error in making the impugned order. Section 323 has no application to the facts of the case. It provides for the committal of a case which ought to be tried by the Court of Session. This is a case which is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The maximum punishment provided for each of the offences is 7 years. Section 29 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: the Court of a Chief Judicial Magistrate may pass any sentence authorised by law except a sentence of death or of imprisonment for life or of imprisonme


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