Dineshwar Singh Kaushik
03 December 2010 at 19:40
A Judicial Magistrate after inquiry u/s 202cr.p.c.issued summons u/s 204 of cr.p.c. Thereafter the accused persons appeared in the court and got bail.After appearing in trial court accused persons filed revision against order of Magistrate u/s204 ,the Sessions Judge at the time of admission raised objection that after appearance on summons this revision is not maintainable because the order u/s204 has exhausted and is no more operative.
In my view the objection of Sessions Judge is correct .
What is yours view please share your with me and if any decision is there then please share it also with me (both for & against).
Anonymous
03 December 2010 at 19:39
A Judicial Magistrate after inquiry u/s 202cr.p.c.issued summons u/s 204 of cr.p.c. Thereafter the accused persons appeared in the court and got bail.After appearing in trial court accused persons filed revision against order of Magistrate u/s204 ,the Sessions Judge at the time of admission raised objection that after appearance on summons this revision is not maintainable because the order u/s204 has exhausted and is no more operative.
In my view the objection of Sessions Judge is correct .
What is yours view please share your with me and if any decision is there then please share it also with me (both for & against).
Anonymous
03 December 2010 at 18:46
Sec 28 of PEDV Act states that all proceedings U/S 12,18,19,20,21,22& 23 & 31 shall be governed by the provision of Cr.P.C.,1973
The Respondents filed its reply on the complaint of the complainant rebutting all the allegtion by providing evidence. On the Magistrate asked the complainant to file the Rejoinder on the date of arguments on Interim Relief U/S 23.
The complainant didn't file the Rejoinder. What would be interpreted .Is it not that the complainant has admitted all the rebuttal given by the Respondent. Is there any Citation on this then kindly provide.
Rahul Singh
03 December 2010 at 17:33
I am appearing for the accused in the case.
The case of the complainant is that the Ch.has been bounced by the bank on a/c of Innsuficient funds in the account of the accused.Whereas the account of the accused was fully closed two years back(the said fact has also been proved in evidence)than submission of the Ch. for collection.So the offence u/s.138 to me is not made out.I want furthur clarification on the point and ruling to defend as it is totally a false case against my client.
Member (Account Deleted)
03 December 2010 at 15:29
what is the difference between a writ petition under 226 and CRL.M.C.?
What type of remedies can be availed from both procedures and which is more convinient to acquire quick relief?
Anonymous
03 December 2010 at 15:29
my wife has booked for false 498a ipc covering my total family members. lawyers saying that to file discharge.
will it be success to file defamatory suit against wife after discharge? or
will it be success to file a private complaint u/s 211 of ipc against her ? or
will it be success to file a private complaint for false information given to police?
but police has filed charge shit allegation of the accused has snatched dowery without going into truth invistigation.
Member (Account Deleted)
03 December 2010 at 13:34
in a crl.m.c. against summoning order of state, the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 has filed counter affidavit but state has not filed it's counter affidavit till now,even after two and half years of recieving notice. Is it permissible?
How should this case be proceeded now?
rajvinder singh
02 December 2010 at 23:09
in compliant case under prevention of atrocities on sc /st ,the complanant was examined,other two witnessess were also examined in preliminary evidence,but sc certificate was not exihibited, further the preliminary evedence is not closed also. now i wna to exihibit the sc certificate and some other documents,how can i do so.wheter i have to recall the compalnant by moving application under section 311 crpc,or i have to simply make another statement for exhibiting the documents
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTORS IN SESSIONS COURTS
SIRS,
public prosecutors in district and session courts are actually appointed by state govt.s , u/s 24(2) CRPC , while assistant public prosecutors in magistrate courts are also appointed by state govt.s u/s 25 of CRPC. the only difference is that APP s in magistrate courts are appointed by the state govt., after conducting a written examination and after an interview. but a PP in district and sessions court is appointed purely on tyhe basis of a recommendation by the district collector, without conducting any written examination or interview. is it not injustice , as normally, the undeserved, but with political influence gets appointed as PPs in sessions courts.what is your openion ?