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

1972 Supreme(Mad) 157

K.BHIMIAH
The State of Mysore – Appellant
Versus
Satyendra Kumar – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K. Laxmeshwar, High Court Government Pleader, for State.
K.M. Chandrasekhar, for Respondent.

Order-

The above criminal revision petition is filed by the State from an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Second Court, Bangalore, holding-chat the protection afforded under section 170(1) of the Mysore Police Act, 1963 (to be hereinafter referred to as the Act) is not available to the accused who are constables attached to Basavanagudi Police Station in Bangalore City before the stage of recording of evidence.

2. The material facts are:

The respondent-complainant Satyendrakumar, a resident of Govindappa’s Street in Basavanagudi, Bangalore, gave a complaint before the Court on 6th November, 1970, against the two constables alleging that they committed offences punishable under sections 323, 352 and 447 and 300 of the Indian penal Code, on 27th October, 1970. The complaint was referred to the Police for investigation and report under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code The Circle Inspector of Police, Basavauagudi Sub-Division, investigated into the crime and submitted a ‘B’ report to treat the case as false. But the complainant challenged the ‘B’ report and undertook to prove the case. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate recorded further statement of the




















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