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

1966 Supreme(All) 250

C. B. CAPOOR, HARISH CHANDRA PATI TRIPATHI, JAI SHANKER TRIVEDI
Badlu – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

C.B. Capoor, J. - This is a petition Under Section 561A of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the quashing of proceedings Under Section 107/117 Code of Criminal Procedure pending against the Applicants. The main ground on which the petition is based is that by a notice issued Under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Applicants were required to show cause as to why they be not required to execute a bond to keep peace for a period of one year and as the said period of one year has expired the proceeding cannot continue and in support of that contention reliance has been placed upon a ruling of this Court reported as Babu Ram and Anr. v. Rex AIR 1949 Allahabad 21: 1948 AWR 214 (H.C.). Before proceeding to discuss the aforesaid decision I propose to consider the question as if it were one of first impression. The Applicants have not been required to furnish interim security and as such Section 117 of the Code is not material. The relevant sections of the Code are 107, 112, 118 and 120.

2. Sub-section (1) of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inter alia provides that whenever a Presidency Magistrate, District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate or Mag

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