Skip to content


Queen Empress Vs. Jethmal Jayraj - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR9Bom27
AppellantQueen Empress
RespondentJethmal Jayraj
Excerpt:
.....i of 1879, sections 64 and 69 - refusal to give receipt--sanction of collector necessary before prosecution--jurisdiction want of. - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj sc 1 is not the law.....west, j.1. the jurisdiction of the magistrate in this case depended on sanction to the prosecution by the collector. it was essential, therefore, that the record of the conviction should evidence such sanction. it does not contain any written sanction, nor any note even of sanction having been given to the prosecution. the conviction, therefore, must be reversed, as the trial was held without jurisdiction. the fine to be restored.
Judgment:

West, J.

1. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate in this case depended on sanction to the prosecution by the Collector. It was essential, therefore, that the record of the conviction should evidence such Sanction. It does not contain any written sanction, nor any note even of sanction having been given to the prosecution. The conviction, therefore, must be reversed, as the trial was held without jurisdiction. The fine to be restored.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //