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

2014 Supreme(Megh) 153

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH
Prebul Kemprai – Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P.K. Roy Choudhury, Adv.
For the Respondents: N.D. Chullai, PP and K.P. Bhattacharjee, Addl. PP.

Judgment

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Senior PP assisted by Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned Addl. PP appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2.

2. This criminal petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shillong dated 20.05.2014 passed in Sessions Case No. 6/2014. On perusal of the said order dated 20.05.2014, it is clear that the learned counsel appeared for the accused in the said Sessions Case No. 6/2014 before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Shillong. On bare perusal of the impugned order i.e. dated 20.05.2014, it appears that Section "205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973" (for short 'Cr. P.C.') had been misquoted. The committal proceeding is under Section 209 of the Cr. P.C. After that committal proceeding, the concerned accused persons were to appear before the Court of the concerned Sessions Judge. After the committal proceeding under Section 209 of the Cr. P.C. is completed, there is no question of going back to the procedures prescribed under Section 205 of the Cr. P.C. Under the general provision for inquiries and trial u




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