Munshi Singh vs State of Rajasthan - 1996 Supreme(Raj) 1009

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(Raj) 1009

M.A.A.KHAN
Munshi Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent

JUDGMENT

1. - This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated Feb. 20, 1996 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Bharatpur) at Bayana allowed the application under section 311 Cr.PC. of the prosecution seeking permission of the Court to produce certain documents.

2. The facts relevant to the disposal of the present petition are that a piece of land called `Nohra' belonged to Uday Singh Prosecution witness who had allegedly sold the same to petitioner's party. When the petitioner tried to start construction on the said land Uday Singh PW and his men resisted their actions. It led to a `marpit' between the parties and in the course of the incident persons on both sides sustained injuries. One person on prosecution side is stated to have succumbed to his injuries. Cross First Information Reports were lodged and both the parties were challaned. They are stated to be facing their trials in cross-cases in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bayana. The prosecution evidence in the case of non-petitioners party is still being recorded.

3. On January 31, 1996 Uday Singh through the Public Prosecutor moved an application seeking permission of the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided entry for case <00100013194> appears to be a summary of legal principles derived from a case or statutory interpretation, but there is no language indicating subsequent negative treatment or invalidation. Therefore, no cases are identified as bad law at this stage.

Followed/Undisturbed:

The case law <00100013194> states the powers granted under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the broad powers of the court. Since there is no indication of subsequent treatment, it is presumed to be followed or undisturbed unless further context suggests otherwise.

Distinguished or Cited:

No explicit mention of this case being distinguished from others or cited with approval in subsequent rulings. The absence of such language suggests it remains a foundational or accepted interpretation.

Criticized or Questioned:

There is no indication that this case law has been criticized or questioned in subsequent decisions based on the provided information.

Overall, the available information does not reveal any treatment patterns other than the initial statement of legal principle. Without further case references or treatment indicators, the case appears to be a standard legal rule that remains valid.

The treatment status of case <00100013194> is not explicitly stated in the provided excerpt. Its legal standing could be clarified with additional context such as subsequent judicial references, citations, or case history indicating whether it has been upheld, distinguished, or overruled. Due to the lack of such information, its treatment remains uncertain.

**Source :** Jamatraj Kewalji Govani VS State Of Maharashtra - Supreme Court

1996 Supreme(Raj) 1009

M.A.A.KHANMunshi Singh – AppellantVersusState of Rajasthan – Respondent

Cases Referred (1)

Judicial Analysis

M.A.A.KHAN
Munshi Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent