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

1967 Supreme(Cal) 249

T.P.MUKHERJI
Satish Chandra Sadhukhan – Appellant
Versus
Balaram Banerjee – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Balai Chandra Ray and Tapan Kumar Mitra, for Petitioner; N.C. Banerjee and Arun Kumar Mukherjee, for Opposite Party.

ORDER :-

This Rule is directed against an order of the Sessions Judge at Howrah whereby he set aside the order of an assistant sessions judge of the district directing a complaint to be made against the present opposite party to a magistrate, first class, for an offence under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. On a first information alleging an offence of dacoity resulting in a charge-sheet, the five petitioners were put on trial on a charge under section 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial ended in an acquittal with a finding that the allegations made in the complaint were false, frivolous and malicious. The present petitioners thereupon applied to the learned assistant sessions judge concerned for an enquiry under section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the object of making a complaint against the present opposite party for an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned assistant sessions judge allowed the prayer and directed that a complaint be filed as prayed for. Against this order of the learned assistant sessions judge, an appeal was taken to the sessions judge of the district and he found that the necessary findings required to be arriv









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