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

1957 Supreme(Cal) 8

DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
AMULYA KUMAR DUTTA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
NALIN CHANDRA BANERJI, PANKAJ KUMAR GHOSH

DEBABRATA MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition of revision of an order of a Magistrate at Alipur; dated the 8th December, 1956, by which the learned Magistrate declined to follow in this case the procedure laid down for the trial of summons cases as prescribed in Ch. XX of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears that a complaint was filed on the 12th October, 1955, and summons were issued under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. At the time when the processes were issued, Section 448 was a warrant case charge. The Magistrate seems to be of the view that since the proceedings commenced under the old procedure, he is to continue it and he is not obliged to follow the new procedure introduced by the amendments. I am afraid the Magistrate is Wrong. Nobody has any vested right in procedure and as soon as new amendments came into operation, the Magistrate, was obliged to follow the summons case procedure.

( 2 ) IT is said that after taking some evidence, it appeared that the accused had committed trespass of a kind which could not be described as being under Section 448, but under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. He is further charged under Section 352 of the Indian Penal

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