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

1980 Supreme(HP) 30

V.D.MISRA, T.R.HANDA, H.S.THAKUR
MOHANLAL – Appellant
Versus
PREM CHAND – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For appellant petitioner:M/s K.D. Sud and B.B, Vaid For respondent: J. Dinanath.

JUDGMENT

V.D. Mishra, C.J.—Powers of revision and of granting anticipatory bail have been conferred on the High Court as well as the Court of Session by sections 397 and 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred to as the "new Code"). Is it incumbent upon an applicant to approach the Court of Session before moving the High Court ? This question has been referred to the Full Bench. Revision.

2. We will first deal with the revisional jurisdiction. Code of Criminal Procedure 1893 (referred to as the "old Code") also conferred concurrent revisional jurisdiction on the High Court and the Court of Session as well as the District Magistrate. However, sub-section (4) of section 435 of old Code provided that if any application had been made either to the Sessions Judge or District Magistrate, no further application shall be entertained by the other of them. But no restriction «vas placed by the statute on the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. An applicant could make an application before the Court of Session and thereafter before the High Court or directly before the High Court. But as a matter of practice the High Courts insisted that an application should b














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