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

1952 Supreme(Ori) 2

NARASIMHAM
PROSECUTING INSPECTOR – Appellant
Versus
MINAKETAN MAHATO – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
C.K.Ghosh

NARASIMHAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference by the Addl. District Magistrate, Keonjhar, against an order passed by a First Class Magistrate of Keonjhar in a commitment proceeding under section 302, Indian Penal Code, against the opposite party.

( 2 ) THE local Police, after usual investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the opposite party under section 302,. P. C. on 30-3-51. The Sub Divisional magistrate of Sadar, Keonjhar transferred the case to Mr. K. K. Bannerji, magistrate, First Class. That Magistrate, after 2 or 3 adjournments, took up the case on 21-5-51 for enquiry under Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Procedure code. But on that date, though 7 prosecution witnesses were present, the prosecuting Inspector filed a petition for adjournment saying that the investigation of the case had to be reopened and some other witnesses examined. He also prayed for permission to be accorded to the Investigating officer to make further investigation into the case. The Investigating Officer also filed a similar petition before that Magistrate. The learned Magistrate thought that the reopening of the investigation at such a belated stage would be prejudicial to the accused persons and, th




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