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

2016 Supreme(Bom) 1558

S.B.SHUKRE
Harish S/o Rameshrao Ukey – Appellant
Versus
Sau. Kiranlata W/o Harish Ukey – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Applicant : Shri S.A. Mohta.
For the Respondent: Shri V.V. Meshram.

JUDGMENT :

S.B. Shukre, J.

1. Admit. Heard finally by consent.

2. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that while issuing process, by the order passed on 12th January, 2015, the learned 5th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola has not followed the mandate of Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which has been newly amended by the Amendment Act, 2005 and, therefore, the order is vitiated. He also submits that when it is an admitted fact that all the applicants, who are the proposed accused persons are not the residents of the place within the territorial jurisdiction of Akola Court, this very fact required the learned Magistrate, as per Section 202 Criminal Procedure Code, to postpone the issuance of process and make an enquiry either by himself or investigation through a Police Officer in order to find out as to whether or not there is sufficient material for proceeding further in the matter. Since this has not been done by the learned Magistrate, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In support, he places his reliance upon the cases of National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz and another, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 488 and Udai Shankar 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