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

1964 Supreme(Cal) 28

AMARESH ROY
DOONGARSHI DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMBICA CHANDRA BHATTACHARYA, Bimal Chandra Chatterjee, KASHI KANTA MAITRA

AMARESH ROY, J.

( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against the summons that has been issued by the learned Magistrate in a case involving an alleged offence under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act and also certain other orders in a proceeding which has remained pending in that Court. Upon a "prosecution report the learned Magistrate took cognizance of an alleged offence under Section 123 of the Motor Vehicles Act against two persons. The summons that was issued by the learned Magistrate in the Form No. 1 Schedule V of the Code of Criminal Procedure read in the material part, "you are hereby required to appear in person by pleader". Both the alternatives, that is appearance in person or, appearance by pleader, were allowed to remain without any one of them being scored out, and that summons was issued under the' signature of the learned Magistrate.

( 2 ) ON the very next date, that is on 9th May, 1960 when the accused were absent, the learned Magistrate directed issue of warrants of arrest against both the accused. It does not appear whether before that date the Summons had been Served on the accused persons or, whether it had been returned unserved. That warrant of arrest did not su





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