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

R.P.SETHI, K.T.THOMAS
Sudhiretc. – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhay Pradesh – Respondent


Judgment

Thomas, J.—Leave granted.

2. A grey area is sought to be reple­nished with a judicial pronouncement. A case and counter case, both were committed to the Court of Sessions as both cases involve offences triable exclusively by Sessions Court. But after hearing the preliminary arguments the Sessions Judge felt that in one case no offence triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions is involved, whereas in the other case a charge for offences including one triable exclusively by the Sessions Court could be framed. Is it necessary, in such a situation, that the Sessions Court should transfer the former case to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, for trial as envisaged in Section 228(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘the Code’). This is the core issue which has come up to the fore in these appeals.

3. For understanding the question better it is necessary to have a short resume of the facts.

An encounter took place on the night of 18.2.1996, at a particular place near Bhitar Bazar, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, in which firearms and other weapons were used and persons were injured. The details of the incident are not relevant and hence skipped. Two r

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