Back
SANJAY DWIVEDI
Raju Rajput – Appellant
Versus
Raju Rajput – Respondent
ORDER :
1. This revision is against the order dated 10.01.2022 passed in a pending trial i.e. Sessions Trial No. 572/2021 arising out of Crime No. 324/2021 registered at Police Station Shahpura, District Jabalpur for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 506, 307, 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of Arms Act whereby the Court below has decided the MJC registered by the Court and at the same time while deciding the bail application of other accused persons in which the complainant moved an application that the names of the present applicants be arrayed as accused because there is sufficient material available in the case diary. The Court below while deciding the bail application of the other accused, registered the MJC and kept the same pending because on the date when bail application was being decided, the case was not committed and the said Court had no jurisdiction to decide the said MJC while considering the bail application. Although, during the pendency of that MJC, chargesheet was filed and case was committed and thereafter it came before the same Court which has decided the bail application and registered the MJC at that point of time and direc
A court's order made without jurisdiction at inception cannot be validated by subsequent events, reaffirming the principle that jurisdiction must exist at the time of the order.
The Court of Sessions can take cognizance of offences against accused not charge-sheeted by the police after the case is committed to it, based on prima facie evidence.
A Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the same offence multiple times once it has been committed to the Sessions Court, affirming that further cognizance without proper cause is legally impermissibl....
Cognizance of an offence can only be taken once, and the process of summoning other persons involved in the crime is a part of the process of taking cognizance. The interpretation of Section 190 and ....
The High Court's revisional order allowing summoning of additional accused under Section 319 relates back to the original rejection date, permitting a fresh trial despite the main trial's conclusion.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
