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

1958 Supreme(All) 131

B.MUKERJI, H.P.ASTHANA
STATE – Appellant
Versus
DEVI DAYAL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.C.Chaturvedi, R.K.SHANGLU, S.N.Mulla

B. MUKERJI, J.

( 1 ) ALTHOUGH I am in entire agreement with the opinion expressed by my learned brother Asthana, yet I should like to say a few words of my own since the question that was raised in this case related to the jurisdiction of a Bench of this Court and as such was a matter of importance. It is not necessary for me to go into the facts in any detail since my learned brothers judgment has incorporated in it all the relevant facts necessary for the determination of the question that arose for determination. Suffice it to say that on the 24th March, 1958, a Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice James and Mr. Justice Takru directed a notice to issue to the opposite party before us, Devi Dayal, to show cause, within three weeks, why the sentences which had been passed on him by the Magistrate by his Order dated the 29th October, 1957, be not enhanced. This notice was directed to issue by the aforementioned bench ostensibly in the exercise of, as they said, "the High Courts power of Revision".

( 2 ) ON the 6th of August, 1957, James and Takru, JJ. while deciding Criminal Appeal No. 601 of 1957, namely, an appeal filed by Krishna Chandra alias Bhola and others against t
























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