Skip to content


In Re: Baba Yeshwant Desai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 58 of 1911
Judge
Reported in(1911)13BOMLR505
AppellantIn Re: Baba Yeshwant Desai
Excerpt:
.....section 200; but includes as well a person proceeded against under chap. viii of the code. ;the word 'discharged' is not defined in the code and there is no valid ground for departing in respect of it from the rule of construction that where in a statute the same word is used in different sections it ought to be interpreted in the same sense throughout unless the context in any particular section plainly requires that it should be understood in a different sense. ;queen-empress v. mutasaddi lal (1898) i. l.r. 21 all. 107; king-emperor v. fyaz-ud-din (1901) i. l. r. 24 all. 148; and queen-empress v. mona puna (1892) i. l. r. 16 bom. 661 followed. ;queen-empress v. iman mondal (1900) i. l. r. 27 cal. 662 and velu tayi ammal v. chidambaravelu pillai (1909) i. l. r. 33 mad. 85 not..........its application to a person against whom 'a complaint' has been made under sections 200 of the code. persons proceeded against under chapter viii of the code are persons against whom there is an accusation in the ordinary acceptation of the word. the word 'discharged' is also not defined in the code and there is no valid ground for departing in respect of it from the rule of construction that where in a statute the same word is used in different sections it ought to be interpreted in the same sense throughout unless the context in any particular section plainly requires that it should be understood in a different sense. we think that we should follow the rulings of the allahabad high court, queen-empress v. muttasaddi lal (1) and king-emperor v. fyaz-ud-din (2), which follow the.....
Judgment:

Chandavarkar, J.

1. The question before us is whether the District Magistrate has jurisdiction under Sections 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to order a fresh inquiry into the case of a person 'discharged' by a Subordinate Magistrate under Sections 119 of the Code. The decision of the question turns upon the interpretation of the words 'any accused person' and 'discharged' used in Sections 437. There is no definition of 'accused person' in the Code and we see no sound reason for confining its application to a person against whom 'a complaint' has been made under Sections 200 of the Code. Persons proceeded against under Chapter VIII of the Code are persons against whom there is an accusation in the ordinary acceptation of the word. The word 'discharged' is also not defined in the Code and there is no valid ground for departing in respect of it from the rule of construction that where in a Statute the same word is used in different sections it ought to be interpreted in the same sense throughout unless the context in any particular section plainly requires that it should be understood in a different sense. We think that we should follow the rulings of the Allahabad High Court, Queen-Empress v. Muttasaddi Lal (1) and King-Emperor v. Fyaz-ud-din (2), which follow the decision of this Court in Queen Empress v. Mona Puna(s); and not the rulings in Queen-Empress v. Iman Mondal (4) and Velu Tayi Ammal v. Chidambaravclu Pillai (5). The rule is accordingly discharged.


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