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

1995 Supreme(P&H) 1337

SWATANTER KUMAR
Jagtar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory Chandigarh – Respondent


Judgment

Swatanter Kumar, J.

1. The only question in this case is with regard to interpretation of Section 195(1) of Code of Criminal Produce. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the present case a complaint was made by the public servant (District Magistrate) under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code to the concerned police station. After investigation challan was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate concerned along with the copy of the complaint made by the public servant to the police officer.

2. These facts are not disputed. Language of Section 195(1) of the Code does not leave scope for any ambiguity and is the section which has to be construed strictly. In accordance with the settled principles of interpretation applicable to criminal jurisprudence the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code or penal laws have to be strictly construed so as to be given meaning except what is intended by the Legislature in the language used itself. The relevant portion of Section is that, "No court shall take cognizance - except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate". 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