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

1983 Supreme(Guj) 171

A.P.RAVANI
R. M. AGRAVAT-R. R. SHAH ASST. COMMISSIONER AHMD. – Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT JUDGE,jamnagar-SUKAR NARAYAN BAKHIA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: HARUBHAI MEHTA, I.S.SUPEHIA, K.J.SETHNA, M.A.BUKHARI

A. P. RAVANI, J.

( 1 ) IT is seriously asserted in the academic world that Modern India seems to have at least two parallel legal systems : One for the rich and resourceful and those who wield political power and influence and the other for the small men without resources and capabilities to obtain justice or fight injustice [see Origin of Indian Legal System at page 4 by Prof. Upedra Baxi. ] One may or may not agree with this observation he but if any one is in search of evidenc to support the aforesaid proposition the proceedings of this case in general and the impugned order passed by the learned City Session Judge (Court No. 4 Ahmedabad granting bah to the opponent-accsued in particular should serve as a sufficient proof for the coorrectness of the statement. It is bit surprising (and shocking too) that the learned City Sessions Judge (Court No. 4) Ahmedabad did not even refer to the provisions of Section 436 of the Criminal Procedure Code although the Supreme Court had clearly pointed out the same and had directed to keep the said provision in mind while deciding an application for bail. The provisions of Section 436 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code empower a court to refuse




















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