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

1969 Supreme(Cal) 242

AJAY KUMAR BASU, R.N.DUTT
PUNYANANDA AVADHUT – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ARUN KUMAR MUKHERJI, KISHORE MUKHARJI, N.C.BANERJI, S.N.BANERJEE

R. N. DUTT, J.

( 1 ) ON some first information report lodged by the petitioner, the police made an investigation and thereafter submitted a charge-sheet against the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 33. There was an enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the said opposite parties were committed to the Court of Session at Purulia under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The case is now pending trial before the Sessions Judge, Purulia.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has obtained this Rule with a view to get the case transferred from the Sessions Court at Purulia to some other Sessions Court for trial. The State has entered appearance and Mr. Banerjee, the learned Deputy Legal Remembrancer, informs us that the State neither supports nor opposes the Rule. Mr. Mukherjee appears for the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 33 and opposes this Rule.

( 3 ) MR. Mukherjee at the outset takes two preliminary objections. He submits that the petitioner makes no aspersion or allegation against the Sessions Judge and so, there is no scope for transfer of the case from his Court under Section 526 (1) (a) of the Code. We find that the petitioner's application be



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