We do not think that in enacting section 27 the Legislature has in anyway stripped itself of its essential Chandigarh Advocates powers or assigned to the administrative authority anything but an accessory or subordinate power which was deemed necessary to carry out the purpose and the policy of the Act. We think that this contention is well-founded. Chatterjee cannot therefore succeed. Nor has any of the other appellants been produced as a witness to say that any such signature was taken from any of them on blank paper.
It is also significant that accused No. nBefore the learned Sessions Judge the prosecution led the evidence of various witnesses. That evidence may be grouped into three heads. P-III-8/2001-61 Stha II dated 12 September, 2001 are wrong, illegal, against facts, arbitrary malafide, against principles of natural justice, null and void and ineffective against the rights of plaintiff? below the signature of the appellant which shows that chit came into existence after court hours.
Can Advocate in Chandigarh we go further, and uphold the election of the first respondent under section 100 (2) (c) on the ground Lawyer Chandigarh that if Rule 23 had not been broken, the wasted votes would have gone to him? ” 564 His contention is that there being in the Constitution a fundamental distinction between the Government of the Union and Government of the States, section 3(8) of the General Clauses Act should be so construed as not to destroy that distinction, and that having regard to the definition of ” State ” in section 3(60), it must be held that to the extent the Central Government administers Part C States under article 239, its character is that of the State Governments.
The rule contemplated by this section is Rule 48. Section 46 of the Act provides that “when the counting of the votes has been completed, the Returning Officer shall forthwith declare the result of the election in the manner. The second contention of Mr. A/1 bears the hour 5- 15 P. provided by this Act or the rules made thereunder”. The expression “the result of the election” in section 100(1) (c) must, unless there is something in the context compelling a different interpretation, be construed in the same sense as in section 66, and there it clearly means the result on the basis of the valid votes.
That provides that the Returning Officer should after counting the votes “forthwith declare the candidate or candidates to whom the largest number of valid votes has been given, to be elected”. 300 with his new Advocate Chandigarh in spite of the fact that in the earlier part of the day the interim order for stay had been made. The trial took considerable time The accused were represented by counsel and searching and vigorous cross-examination was addressed to all the prosecution witnesses.
It is very difficult to accept this story because the petitioner knew from his experience as an accused Lawyers in Chandigarh the trial Court that no Vakalatnama was required in a criminal case. ” State Government ” as respects anything done or to be done after the commencement of the Constitution, shall mean, in a Part A State, the Governor, in a Part B State the Rajpramukh, and in a Part C State the Central Government.
An assessment so made without disclosing to the assessee the information supplied by the departmental representative and without giving any opportunity to the assessee to rebut the information so supplied and declining to take into consideration all materials which the assesses wanted to produce in support of his case constitutes a violation of the fundamental rules of justice and calls for the powers under Art. Further, the petitioner was present in Court on the 11th October when 1063 the interim stay order was made.
The argument of the appellant is that would, in effect, be accepting the very votes which the Legislature says in Rule 47(1) should be rejected, and that it is not warranted by the scheme of the Act. Under this rule quite clearly no candidate can be declared elected on the strength of votes which are liable to be rejected under Rule 47. -The appellant in this case was a clerk in the office of the Running Shed Foreman of -the East Indian Railway at Kanpur.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNADHADAS J. He was convicted under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and nine months, and also to a fine of Rs. Whether the impugned order No. It is utterly impossible to believe that the petitioner would deposit Rs. 136 of the Constitution. , and the last part of the evidence related to the subsequent events including the arrest and the identification of the accused, the recoveries of the tin box containing the revolvers and the live cartridges, the steel trunk containing six ‘thappis’ and five bundles of 100 rupee notes and disbursements of cash by the accused towards the end of April, or the beginning of May.
One part of the evidence related to the movements and the activities of the accused before the 20th April, 1951, the other part of the evidence related to the actual participation of the accused in the occurrence which took place at Bastion Road on the morning of the 20th April, between 10-30 and 10-45 A.