H.C.MISHRA, B.B.MANGALMURTI, ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
Tuk Lal Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT (C.A.V.)
H.C. Mishra, J.—Heard learned counsels for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
2. This reference to the Full Bench has arisen out of the Order dated 09.07.2018, passed in Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.1281 of 2016, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.2066 of 2017, Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.2229 of 2017 and Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.825 of 2014, and all these appeals arise out of the appellate judgments / orders passed by the different Courts of Session, which were originally listed before the Hon’ble Single Judge for adjudication. The Hon’ble Single Judge, however, referred those matters to the Division Bench, in view of the Rule 152 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001.
3. While these matters were taken up, an objection was raised by the learned counsel for the State that in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, these appeals shall lie before the Single Judge and not before the Division Bench. It was pointed out that the Proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., was brought in by an Amendment Act, with effect from 31.12.2009, whereas, the High Cour
Satyapal Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
Bidya Lakhan Bhagat vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.
Nirmal Kr. Agrawal vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.
Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi) Administration)
Roopendra Singh vs. State of Tripura & Anr.
S. Sundaram Pillai & Ors. vs. V.R. Pattabiraman & Ors.
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.