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

1955 Supreme(Raj) 11

MODI
Sukh Lal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Hastimal, for Petitioner; Kansingh, Deputy Government Advocate

Modi, J.—This is an application under sec. 215 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the petitioner Sukhlal, and has arisen under the following circumstances.

2. The present petitioner, along with one other person with whom we are not concerned for the purposes of the present revision, has been committed by the Extra Magistrate, Banswara, to stand his trial under sec. 302 read with sec. 109 I.P.C. in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Banswara. This application has been filed on his behalf for quashing the order of commitment, mainly, on the ground that there is no evidence, worth the name, on the basis of which the Magistrate could have committed the accused.

3. A preliminary objection was raised by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that the petitioner should have submitted his application in the first instance before the learned Sessions Judge concerned, and then come up to this Court, and that as this has not been done, this Court should refuse to go into the merits of this application. On the other hand, it was strenuously contended on behalf of the petitioner that under sec. 215 Cr.P.C., a commitment once made under sec. 213 by a competent Magistrate could be quashe




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