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

1953 Supreme(All) 95

MUKERJI, SAPRU
STATE – Appellant
Versus
PYAREY MOHAN LAL SRIVASTAVA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Vishwa Nath Seth

MUKERJI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision by the State against an order of the learned Sessions Judge of lucknow holding that by virtue of Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act (Act 46 of 1952), he had no jurisdiction to continue the trial of the case. Section 7 of the Criminal Law amendment Act of 1952 is in these words : "7 (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 (Act 5 of 1898) or in any other law the offences specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be triable by Special Judges only.

( 2 ) EVERY offence specified in Sub-section (1) of Section 6 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the State Government.

( 3 ) WHEN trying any case, a Special Judge may also try any offence other than an offence specified in Section 6 with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be charged at the same trial. " (2) The facts of the present case need be stated now. The opposite party Pyarey Mohan Lal Srivastava along with five others was suspected of h






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