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

1957 Supreme(Cal) 6

DEBABRATA MOOKHERJEE
RADHANATH MAJI – Appellant
Versus
KISHORILAL BANERJEE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Bijan Bihari Das Gupta, DILIP KUMAR DUTTA, Nikhil Chandra Talukdar

DEBABRATA MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Rule to show cause why a certain order of acquittal made under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should not be set aside or why such other or further order or orders made as to this Court may seem fit and proper.

( 2 ) FOR the purposes of this Rule it is not necessary to set out the facts. There was an information lodged with the police by the complainant. Upon investigation the police submitted a chargesheet and copies of police papers were made available in due course to the accused. The Magistrate before whom the accused persons were tried made an order on 25th June, 1956, which is now complained of. It appears that on that day although the complainant was present no prosecution witnesses were present. The accused opposite party then represented to the Magistrate that if the police papers were looked into and examined, it would appear clear that there was no case against the opposite party. The learned Magistrate acceded to the request, looked into the police papers and straightway made an order under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure acquitting the accused of the charges against them.

( 3 ) IT is contended befor



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