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

1991 Supreme(Cal) 194

M.G.MUKHERJI, GITESH RANJAN BHATTACHARJEE
MABIA BIBI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MILAN MUKHARJI, RAMENDRA NATH CHAKRAVORTI

M. G. MUKHERJI, J.

( 1 ) IN the present application for bail several interesting questions of law have been argued by the learned members of the Bar.

( 2 ) MR. Milan Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner brought to our notice the fact that the arrest of the petitioner was made on 22. 2. 91 and there was an older of remand till 8. 3. 91. Even though Mr. Mukherjee contended that the remand was not permissible in the eye of law in view of the fact that 12. 4. 91 was fixed as the next date, we find that the said date was only for arrival for service return as regards issue of warrant of arrest upon other accused Munja Bibi. Mr. Mukherjee further contended before us that on the expiry of 8th of March, 1991 it was an incumbent duty on the part of the learned Magistrate to have forwarded the accused to the Special Court having jurisdiction, since a remand beyond fifteen days was not permissible in law. It is indeed a fact that after the accused is forwarded to the Special Court having jurisdiction, the Special Court may exercise the same powers which a Magistrate has under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Again it is the Special Court which may upon th









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