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

1963 Supreme(Guj) 22

V.B.RAJU
JADEJA MERAMANJI PRAGJI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: B.R.SOMPURA, J.R.NANAVATI, K.S.ACHARYA

V. B. RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS revision application arises out of the following facts:- The applicants were charge-sheeted under sec. 120 B I. P Code read with section 465 467 and 468 I. P Code in the Court of the J. M. F. C. Mandvi Kutch. After the receipt of the charge sheet the learned Magistrate fixed a date for holding a committal inquiry under sec. 207-A Cri. P. C On that date applications were given on behalf of the accused saying that the learned Magistrate was not competent to take cognizance in view of the provisions of sec. 196a Cr. P. C. The learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the accused under sec. 196a Cr. P. C. and ordered that the committal inquiry under sec. 207a Cr. P. C. should proceed against the accused for the offences punishable under sec. 120b read with section 420 465 467 and 468 I. P. C. The learned Sessions Judge in revision confirmed this order and rejected the revision application before him. Hence the present revision application before the High Court.

( 2 ) SECTION 196-A Cri P. C. reads as follows :- the Court shall take cognizance of the offence of criminal conspiracy punishable under sec. 120b of the Indian Penal Code (1) in a case where the o





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