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

1984 Supreme(All) 287

B.N.KATJU, R.B.LAL, I.P.SINGH
RADHEY SHYAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.S.SANGAR, R.S.SENGAR, SATISH CHANDRA

B. N. KATJA, J.

( 1 ) THE applicants filed an application in this court under Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code for transfer of Sessions Trial No. 210 of 1981 State v Balgovind and others from thet court of 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Allahabad to some other competent court within the same Sessions Divisions. When the aforesaid application was heard by a single Judge a preliminary objection was taken that the application was not maintainable in view of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel for the applicants, however, contended that as the Sessions Trial was part-heard the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 407 Criminal Procedure Code was inapplicable as the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction to transfer a part heard Sessions trial under Section 408 Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicants reiled on the Division Bench decision of this Court in State v. 1. Gyan Chand in which it was held:1. Sub-section (I C) of Section 528 Criminal Procedure Code does not confer power on the Sessions Judge to transfer a sessions trial from the file of one Additional Sessions Judge to ano






















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