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

1976 Supreme(Guj) 41

J.B.MEHTA, P.D.DESAI
BRAHMCHARI SATYANARAYAN MAHARAJ – Appellant
Versus
KANTILAL L. DAVE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.K.Shah, M.C.SHAH

J. B. MEHTA, P. D. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) THE question which arises in this revision application is whether in the context of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the New Code) an aggrieved person who invokes the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court directly without approaching the Sessions Court in the first instance could be refused relief on the ground that unless special cirumstances are made out his revision application cannot be entertained because he had failed to move the Sessions Court. Having regard to the importance of the question the matter has been referred to a Division Bench. We do not however propose to decide the entire case on merits. We shall only deal with and decide the question set out above and pass appropriate orders with regard to the disposal of the case on merits in accordance with the view which we ultimately take. Under the circumstances it is not necessary to set out the facts giving rise to the revision application

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the proper dimension of the point at issue it would be necessary first to make reference to the relevant statutory provisions. Chapter XXVI of the Bombay High C








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