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

1960 Supreme(Cal) 127

SINHA
NRISHINGHA MURARI CHAKRAVARTY – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECTOR, HOOGHLY – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Arun Kumar Dutt, BIBHUTI BHUSAN MUKHERJEE, J.Majumdar, SOMENDRA C.BOSE

SINHA, J.

( 1 ) THE facts in this case are shortly as follows: The petitioner was a confidential assistant of the District Magistrate and Collector, Hooghly. According to the petitioner, his appointing authority was the District Magistrate and his services are governed by the Bengal Services Civil Subordinate (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1936 (sic ). It appears that on or about the 17th January, 1958 a First Information Report was submitted against the petitioner under Section 419/420/114/120b of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 11 of the West Bengal Security Act etc. On the 20th January, 1958 the petitioner was suspended by an order of the District Magistrate. A copy of the order of suspension is annexure "a" to the petition and it is clear there-from that it is based on the F. I. R. mentioned above. Thereafter, he was placed before the Special Court. On or about the 1st December, 1959 the petitioner was discharged, following the decision of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 377 of 1958, wherein it had been laid down that a Special Court will only take cognizance on a complaint made in accordance with Section 190 (1) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The very sa





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