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

1977 Supreme(Guj) 81

D.P.DESAI
NARENDRA AMRATLAL DALAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.J.PATEL, D.K.Shah, S.A.BAQUI

D. P. DESAI, J.

( 1 ) IN peculiar circumstances this petition has come to be filed. In fact at the bar a grievance was made as regards practice in vogue in some Courts of sending a criminal case from the Metropolitan Magistrates Court to the Sessions Court and from the Sessions Court to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court and from there again to the Metropolitan Magistrates Court. This exactly seems to have happened in the present case with the result that as stated by the learned Advocate for the petitioner at the bar the petitioner had to execute fresh bail and surety bond four times.

( 2 ) THE following facts will be quite eloquent on this grievance and they now call for true and correct interpretation of the relevant provisions bearing upon the powers of the Magistrate and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (which interpretation would cover Judicial Magistrate and Chief Judicial Magistrate also) as regards sending of cases from one Court to another on the ground that the sentence which could be imposed by the Magistrate would not be adequate.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was a cashier and he was charge-sheeted before the Metropolitan Magistrate Second Court Ahmedabad with two separa









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