1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court upholds conviction under Indian Penal Code, clarifies appeal rights</h1> The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to convict the appellants under s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court ... - Issues:1. Appeal against order of acquittal under s. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.2. Interpretation of 'institution of a case' in the context of cognizance of offences.3. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate in directing police to institute a case.Analysis:Issue 1:The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the High Court's order convicting the appellants under s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code after setting aside the Assistant Sessions Judge's acquittal. The main contention was whether an appeal lay to the High Court against an order of acquittal under s. 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Supreme Court clarified that the right of appeal against acquittal under s. 417(3) is limited to cases instituted upon a complaint. In this case, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant, establishing that the case was instituted on a complaint, allowing for appeal against acquittal.Issue 2:The interpretation of 'institution of a case' in the context of cognizance of offences was crucial. The Court examined the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure related to cognizance by Magistrates and emphasized that cognizance is taken when the court applies its mind to proceed under the provisions of the Code. The Court analyzed the actions of the Magistrate in examining the complainant under s. 200 and issuing an order for the police to institute a case, concluding that cognizance was indeed taken based on the complaint, not the subsequent police report.Issue 3:Regarding the jurisdiction of the Magistrate in directing the police to institute a case, the Court clarified that the Magistrate's order should be construed as one made under s. 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, allowing for an investigation rather than solely directing the police to institute a case. The irregularity in the Magistrate's order did not result in a failure of justice, and the subsequent conviction by the High Court was upheld, dismissing the appeal against the conviction.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to convict the appellants under s. 395 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court's detailed analysis clarified the legal interpretation of 'institution of a case' and the Magistrate's jurisdiction in directing police action, ensuring justice was served in the case.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
