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

1973 Supreme(Mad) 350

C.HONNIAH
D. H. Chikkadoddaiah – Appellant
Versus
Nataraj – Respondent


Advocates:
C.B. Motaiah, Advocate for Petitioner.
M.V. Devaraju, Advocate for Respondent.

Order.-

A complaint was filed against the respondent (accused Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Kengerigate Police Station, Bangalore-2, by the petitioner (complainant) in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate , First Class (I Court) Bangalore City, alleging that he had committed offences under sections 323, 324, 355, 426, 392 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused raised an objection that the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offences in view of the provisions of section 170 of the Mysore Police Act 1963, hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The learned Magistrate upheld the objection of the accused and rejected the complaint. That order is challenged by the complainant in this revision petition.

2. The only question for decision in this case is whether the prosecution of the accused is barred by the provisions of section 170 of the Act.

3. The complainant stated in his complaint the circumstances which gave rise to the prosecution of the accused as follows. On 18th October, 1971, two police constables in uniform with one Lakshmegowda went to his saw mill and informed him that the accused wanted him nd so saying took him to the police station. The accus














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