SAIFAR Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(CAL)-1960-11-2
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on November 22,1960

SAIFAR Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

KASHEMALI GOMASTA V. THE STATE [REFERRED TO]
MEHRAB V. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
AKSHOY KUMAR DUTTA V. JOGESH CHANDRA NANDY [REFERRED TO]
HAFIZAR RAHMAN VS. AMINAL HOQUE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SUBHASH CHANDER VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-1989-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH SAHAI MATHUR VS. STATE DELHI ADMN [LAWS(DLH)-1990-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SHAH LAKHAMSHI AMARSHI [LAWS(GJH)-1965-12-2] [REFERRED]
HAZI MUNIRUDDIN CHOUDHURY VS. AMULYA CHARAN HALDAR [LAWS(GAU)-1987-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAHMUD ALI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1992-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
BOLLAVARAM BALI REDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-1986-6-16] [REFERRED TO]
A K ROY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-1961-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEVAPPA IRAPPA JOGUR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-1985-6-19] [REFERRED TO]
HEMANT P VISSANJI VS. MULSHANKAR SHIVRAM RAWAL [LAWS(BOM)-1991-6-42] [REFERRED TO]
UDAI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1987-4-36] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-8-374] [REFERRED TO]
SK.LATFUR RAHMAN VS. STATE [LAWS(PAT)-1984-12-24] [REFERRED TO.]
RAGHU NANDAN PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2007-9-82] [REFERRED TO]
ANUPAM CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1983-4-8] [REFERRED TO]
GUNARAM TANTI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1982-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
MANORAMA SABAT VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1988-10-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.K.Sen, J. - (1.)This revisional application was filed by the petitioners Saifar Sheikh and five others for quashing the proceedings against them pending in the Court of Sri R. N. Sarkar, Magistrate, First Class, Suri. The facts are briefly as follows:
(2.)On 26th December 1958 one Sheikh Khoda Newaj lodged a first information report at Nanoor P. S. against 17 persons including the six petitioners, alleging that in the early morning of that day, a bullock belonging to one Sonaullah had damaged gram plants belonging to one Mokshed Sk., that the bullock had been seized by Haijan Sk. and Ajad for impounding; that Sonaullah asked for the release of the bullock and there was a quarrel, whereupon fifteen or sixteen persons including the six petitioners assaulted Haijan Sk. and Ajad and rescued the bullock. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against eight accused persons under Section 147, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. On the 1st of May 1959, when the Magistrate was to peruse police papers for considering whether a charge or charges should be framed against the persons sent up the informant filed a petition stating that there was a prima facie case against the six petitioners and that the police wrongfully refused to send them up. The learned Magistrate then perused the police papers and heard both sides, and he decided that there was prima facie evidence against the six petitioners also; and so by an order dated 15th July 1959 he summoned these six petitioners under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. It is against that order that the petitioners have come up.
(3.)Mr. Ajit Kumar Dutt appearing for the petitioners has urged that the learned Magistrate had no jurisdiction to summon the petitioners who had not been sent up by the police along with the charge-sheet.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.