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

1965 Supreme(Guj) 134

P.N.BHAGWATI, J.M.SHELAT, B.J.DIVAN
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
SHAH LAKHAMSHI AMARSHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.D.DESAI, YOGESH S.MANKAD

B. J. DIVAN, P. N. BHAGWATI, J. M. SHELAT, J.

( 1 ) THESE Revision Applications raise an interesting question namely whether in a case where an investigating officer investigating into a cognizable offence has on completion of the investigation submitted a final report as distinguished from a charge-sheet under sec. 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure requesting that A B or C Summary be issued the Magistrate can direct the Investigating Officer to submit a charge-sheet if he disagrees with the recommendation of the police and takes the view that the facts set out in the final report constitute an offence and there is a case for placing the accused on trial. the question is one of some importance since it is likely to arise frequently before Magistrates and that is why the Revision Applications have been referred to a Full Bench by Bakshi and Vakil JJ. before whom they originally came up for hearing. The facts of each revision application are different but it is not necessary to set them out in detail for the purpose of deciding the Revision Applications. It is sufficient to point out that in each case the police investigating the offence a cognizable one took the view on completio















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