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

1965 Supreme(Raj) 29

C.B.BHARGAVA
STATE – Appellant
Versus
NANDKISHORE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.N.KALLA

Judgment


C. B. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE these two appeals by the State raise a common question of law, they are being disposed of by this one judgment.

( 2 ) IN appeal No. 666 of 1963, respondent Nandkishore was prosecuted under section 279 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the respondent while driving truck No. RJA 165 rashly and negligently caused injuries with it to a cow which fell down on the ground and died two days after. Since the case was instituted on a police report, the learned Magistrate first Class Rajgarh adopted the procedure as is provided under Section 251 -A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A charge was framed against the accused on 19th October, 1962. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution witnesses on 4-12-1962, 15-1-63, 12/3/1963 and 19/3/1963, but the prosecution failed to produce any witness. The learned Magistrate closed the prosecution evidence and observed that there was no duty of the Magistrate to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses because there was no such provision under Section 251a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this connection he also refer















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