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

2000 Supreme(All) 875

S.K.AGARWAL
BISMILLA IDRISI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
H.R.Mishra

S. K. AGARWAL, J.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA.

( 2 ) I have perused the order of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Orai dated 30-6-1984 and I do not find any infirmity orillegality in the above said order.

( 3 ) IT has been contended before me by the learned counsel for the applicant that the act of the applicant is squarely covered by the provision of Section 197, Cr. P. C. For ready reference the provision is being quoted as under :"when any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction - (a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government. (b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the a











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