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

1988 Supreme(Guj) 147

D.C.GHEEWALA
SARLABEN VIRSING BAMANIYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: D.F.Amin, J.M.PANCHAL

D. C. GHEEWALA, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners are the daughters of the deceased who was allegedly murdered by respondent No. 2 and some others. The Police after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet only against respondent No. 2. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the present petitioners gave an application Ex. 5 asking the learned Sessions Judge to order further investigation and the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to reject the said application on the ground that under Sec. 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he had powers to implead a person not named as an accused as an accused if after going through the evidence he thought it fit but as the evidence was not recorded the learned Sessions Judge thought that the application deserved to be rejected and he accordingly rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same the petitioners have preferred the present revision application and the only question which was posed before this Court was as to whether once the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions powers of further investigation given to the Magistrate under sub-sec. (8) of Sec. 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be exercised by the Sess






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