Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Goverdhan Ridkaran - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 98 of 1927
Judge
Reported inAIR1928Bom140(1); (1928)30BOMLR387
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGoverdhan Ridkaran
Excerpt:
.....wholly outside the limits of his jurisdiction.;the word 'ordinarily' in section 177 of the criminal procedure code, 1898, means, 'except in the cases provided hereinafter to the contrary.';mussammat bhagwatia v. king-emperor (1924) i.l.r. 3 pat. 417, followed. - 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..........khandesh district, and abetment of bigamy by actually assisting at the marriage at that place, the city magistrate, ahmednagar, has no jurisdiction to try the accused on those charges. we think that the word 'ordinarily' in section 177, criminal procedure code, must be taken to mean 'except in the cases provided hereinafter to the contrary'. the decision in musaammat bhagwatia v. king-emperor i.l.r (1924) pat. 417, is on this very point and is one with which we agree. no doubt as shown by ill. (a) to section 180, criminal procedure code, a charge of abetment of bigamy might be inquired into by the city magistrate, if the abetment was committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction. but there does not appear to be clear evidence of the commission of such abetment at present on the.....
Judgment:

Fawcett, J.

1. In this case we agree with the Sessions Judge that, as the charge framed by the Magistrate is one of bigamy at a place in the Chalisgaon Taluka of the East Khandesh District, and abetment of bigamy by actually assisting at the marriage at that place, the City Magistrate, Ahmednagar, has no jurisdiction to try the accused on those charges. We think that the word 'ordinarily' in Section 177, Criminal Procedure Code, must be taken to mean 'except in the cases provided hereinafter to the contrary'. The decision in Musaammat Bhagwatia v. King-Emperor I.L.R (1924) Pat. 417, is on this very point and is one with which we agree. No doubt as shown by ill. (a) to Section 180, Criminal Procedure Code, a charge of abetment of bigamy might be inquired into by the City Magistrate, if the abetment was committed within the local limits of his jurisdiction. But there does not appear to be clear evidence of the commission of such abetment at present on the record, and no charge has been framed in regard to any such abetment. Therefore, we think that the objection that has been taken to the exercise of jurisdiction by the City Magistrate is correct.

2. In the circumstances the question arises whether the case should be transferred to a Magistrate at Chalisgaon having jurisdiction, or whether, as has been suggested by Mr. Rele for the complainant, we should exercise the power conferred on us by Section 526, Criminal Procedure Code, of ordering that the offences mentioned in the Magistrate's charge should be tried by the City Magistrate, in spite of the fact that his Court is not one empowered under Sections 177-184, Criminal Procedure Code, to do that. The main prosecution witnesses appear to be residents in Ahraednagar, and there is, therefore, something to be said in favour of this suggestion. On the other hand, the accused should have an opportunity of stating their views on the point, and for this purpose we adjourn the proceedings for a fortnight. Interim stay of proceedings before the City Magistrate.


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