M.C.CHAGLA, K.G.DATAR
Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar and Anr – Appellant
Versus
Talab Haji Hussain – Respondent
1. The two petitions presented by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Preventive and Customs, Bombay raise questions of considerable importance. The first respondent along with others was charged under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 167 (81) of the Sea Customs Act. He was released on hail of Rs. 75,000 with one surety of like amount on 9-12-1957. On 4-1-1958 an application was made by the complainant, who is the petitioner before us, for cancellation of that bail and the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate who was trying the case held that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Against that order these two petitions have been preferred. The first is an application to the High Court to exercise its own power arid cancel the bail. The other is au application in revision against the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate holding that he has no jurisdiction to cancel the bail. Now, before we go into the merits and decide whether this is a fit case for cancellation of bail, we must carefully examine whether we have jurisdiction to pass the order, and it has been strenuously urged by Mr. Somjee on behalf of the first respondent that the High Court has no
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.