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

1964 Supreme(Ori) 32

R.L.NARASIMHAM
Raimon Ho – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates:
S. C. Mohapatra, for Petitioners; Standing counsel, for Opposite Party.

ORDER : During the hearing of this revision petition the question arose about the legality and propriety of the order D/- 14-5-1962 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate of Karanjia in Complaint Case No. 84 of 1961. Mr. S.C. Mohapatra who appeared for the accused persons in that case accepted notice on behalf of those persons, calling upon them to show cause why the order dated 14-5-1962 may not be set aside and he was permitted to argue this point both on facts and on law.

2. The material facts connected with this revision petition are as follows : One Donga Rensa Ho (P.W. 1) filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate on 4-9-61 against the two accused persons (petitioners before me) alleging that they caused him injuries. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on the same day, after examining the complainant on solemn affirmation, took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused persons under S. 323 I.P.C. This was registered as complaint case No. 84 of 1961. On 21-7-1961 the same complainant had lodged information at Parwan. P.S. against the two petitioners alleging that they had caused him injuries. Apparently, this F.I.R. was actually under investigation when the co









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