Protima Dutta Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors-The questions that arise for consideration in the instant writ petition are, inter alia, whether the High Court, under Article 226 can transfer the investigation from the State Police to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and also order change of prosecutor; after a Division Bench of the High Court, while considering an appeal from an order of acquittal, orders retrial, after applying Section 311 of the Cr.PC.
When section 82 of Cr.P.C. stipulates that the Court must have reason to believe that after the warrant was issued against the person, he has absconded or concealed himself somewhere so that warrant could not be executed for which he may direct for publishing a written proclamation, such belief must be based on concrete materials and in absence of such materials, the Court should not mechanically pass an order under section 82 of Cr.P.C. directing publishing a written proclamation.
Process under Sections 82 and 83 cannot be issued unless it is established that a warrant has already been issued against the person wanted and that person is absconding Section 82 Cr. P.C. mandates and empowers the Court to issue…
It warrants interpretation, construction and determination of scope and applicability of sub-sections (4 ) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. as on the basis of isolated literal construction of Section 82 (4) Cr.P.C., avoiding harmonious and Contextual interpretation, in relation to other provisions of Cr.P.C. and IPC.
Law enforcement officers are often a person’s first point of contact with our criminal justice system, and we depend on them to uphold these principles while doing the demanding and often life-threatening work of keeping us safe. We expect them to help prevent and solve crimes and frequently call upon them to respond to social problems outside their expertise and beyond their intended role,
Thus law is well settled that even after the expiry of the order due to efflux of time, in a fit case, the Revisional Court can interfere with the order passed u/s.144 of Cr.P.C. if the Executive Magistrate acted illegally and in excess of its jurisdiction.
From the materials so far collected, the petitioner can be safely stated to have committed an offence u/S.307 of IPC. This court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner vide order dtd.04.04.2022 in BA No.90/160 of 2022. Investigation is going on. There is no change in circumstance of the prosecution case to have a lenient view.
This Act of Adjournal shall have effect for the purpose of providing new rules of procedure in the High Court of Justiciary, in the sheriff court in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction, and in the district court.
Treason Act 1351- A number of Treason Acts, including that of 1351, are still in force. The criteria—which are of course for the prosecuting authorities—are the same as for any other offence; namely, the likelihood, on the available evidence, of securing a conviction, and the general interest of the public.
Then one of the judges of the city stood forth and said, Speak to us of Crime and Punishment. And he answered, saying:
That you on 04.12.1980 at 3.00 p.m. at Galle Ki Mandi within Police Circle P.S. Firozabad South were member of unlawful assembly and did in prosecution of common object of that assembly to murder (injure) Bengali committed the offence of rioting with a deadly weapon knife to stab Bengali and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 I.P.C. within cognizance of this Court.
Various decisions touching upon Section 322(2) Cr.P.C. inform that the Magistrate to whom a case is submitted under Section 322(1) Cr.P.C. cannot act on the evidence recorded by the submitting Magistrate, but must, if he tries the case try it de novo (Manikonda Satyanarayana vs. State [AIR 1955 Andhra 44]; Panna Lal and others vs. State [AIR 1952 All 657]; and Sashti Gopal Samui and another vs. Haridas Bagdi [AIR 1938 Cal 415]).
In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by itself or which otherwise comes to its knowledge, the High Court may, in its discretion, exercise any of the powers conferred on a Court of Appeal by sections 386, 389, 390 and 391 or on a Court of Session by section 307 and, when the Judges composing the Court of revision are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be disposed of in the manner provided by section 392.
In the case of Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1978 SC 47) (supra) a distinction has been made between an order which is purely interlocutory which could be corrected in exercise of revisional power and an order though interlocutory which results in the abuse of the process of the Court and/or calls for interference to secure the ends of justice.
It is also to be stated that S-14 of the Act provides for counselling at any stage and the Ld. Court below can direct any of the parties either singly or jointly, to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who possess such qualifications and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. There is nothing on record that the Ld. Court below has taken any steps adhering to the said section of the Act when the parties filed a joint compromise petition.