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

1979 Supreme(Sikk) 7

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE
GOPALJI PRASAD – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF SIKKIM – Respondent


JUDGEMENT

1. The impugned proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code clearly goes to show how this well-known Section, so frequently resorted to by the people and also by the public authorities, is very often abused by improper and indiscriminate user. But before I proceed to consider and pronounce upon the legality and the propriety of this proceeding in some details, I will have to dispose of some of the preliminary objections to the maintainability of this revisional application raised by and an behalf of the State and the other respondent.

2. It has been urged that this revisional application is not maintainable as the impugned order under Section 144. Criminal Procedure Code has already come to an end by efflux of time. If a proceeding under Section 144, Criminal Procedure Code is, as it cannot but be, a judicial proceeding, the order passed therein cannot but attract the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court, if such jurisdiction is invoked within the time allowed by law and if there are grounds justifying interference in revision and the fact that the impugned order has ceased to be in force cannot be, by itself, a bar to the maintainability of a revision. It ha




















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