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

1955 Supreme(Cal) 139

CHAKRABARTI, K.C.DAS GUPTA, LAHIRI, J.P.MITTER, GUHA RAY
DEBI PRASANNA GHOSE – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
ANIL CHANDRA, CHITTA RANJAN DAS, M.N.DAS, N.K.Basu, S.M.BOSE

CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) IN this Reference to a Full Bench, we find It necessary to formulate the Questions arising out of the facts ourselves, inasmuch as they have not been formulated in the Order of Reference. The questions which do arise may be stated in the following form: (1) Whether when a Police Officer below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police investigates an offence under Section 120 B, read with Section 420, Penal Code and Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947 without complying with the provisions of Section 5 (4) (now Section 5a) of the latter Act, such failure would vitiate the entire proceedings in Court based on the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer; And

( 2 ) WAS the case of 'sudhir Kumar v. The State', in so far as it decided that the entire proceedings in Court would be vitiated in such circumstances, rightly decided? 2. Since the reference was made, the identical question has been decided by the Supreme-Court and we are therefore relieved of the necessity of trying to find an answer to the question for ourselves. In view of the decision of their Lordships in the case of 'h. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi', the answer to t









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