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

1968 Supreme(Cal) 254

AMARESH ROY, S.N.BAGCHI
Corporation Of Calcutta – Appellant
Versus
Bivabati Basu – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
A.K. Dutta, M.G. Mukherji, S.K. Basu.

JUDGMENT

1. THIS is a reference under section 342, sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Sri A. K. Datta, Senior Municipal Magistrate, who is also a Presidency Magistrate of Calcutta.

2. THE point of law referred to this Court for its opinion runs as follows :-

"is it the law, in view of the provision of section 552 (1) of the Calcutta municipal Act, 1951 that that in the instant petition of complaint the facsimile signature of the Commissioner of calcutta Corporation should be accepted as proper and valid execution of the petition of complaint by the commissioner, so that the Court may proceed upon such a petition of complaint to try the accused for the offence as charged therein ?"

The facts of the case as mentioned in the letter of reference of the learned Magistrate are as follows : -The Case No. 468b of 1964 before the Senior Municipal Magistrate, calcutta, appointed under section 579 of the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951, was initiated upon an application for summons under section 537, read with rule 5 (1) of Schedule XVII of the calcutta Municipal Act, 1951. Such application is in a printed form with six columns. The first column - name and designation of the comp













































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