Emperor Vs. Kisan Kevji - Court Judgment
|Case Number|| Criminal Application for Revision No. 123 of 1912|
|Judge|| Narayan G. Chandavarkar, Kt.,; Acting C.J. and ;Batchelor, J.|
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 110-proceedings in security cases - trying magistrate must decide the cases - cases cannot be transferred to district magistrate - regulation xii of 1827, section 27.;where proceedings under section no of the criminal procedure code are once initiated before a magistrate, the magistrate must dispose of them himself. it is not competent to him to send up the case which he is trying to the district magistrate for action under regulation xii of 1827. - .....security from the accused.2. the district magistrate to whom the case was sent up by the first class magistrate, assumed jurisdiction under regulation xii of 1827 and has passed an order placing certain restrictions upon the personal liberty of the petitioners.3. whether if the district magistrate had passed such an order independently of the proceedings under section no, it would have been legal is not the question before us now. but the proceeding having been initiated under section no, the magistrate before whom it was initiated ought to have himself disposed of it. the district magistrate had no jurisdiction to dispose of it.4. on this ground the district magistrate's order must be quashed and the proceedings sent back to the magistrate, first class, to be dealt with and disposed.....
1. The proceedings in this case were initiated under Section no of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Magistrate who initiated them ought to have disposed of them himself; but instead of doing so he sent up the case to the District Magistrate for action under Regulation XII of 1827. That he had no jurisdiction to do. The Code requires that he should pass the final order himself, either discharging or taking security from the accused.
2. The District Magistrate to whom the case was sent up by the First Class Magistrate, assumed jurisdiction under Regulation XII of 1827 and has passed an order placing certain restrictions upon the personal liberty of the petitioners.
3. Whether if the District Magistrate had passed such an order independently of the proceedings under Section no, it would have been legal is not the question before us now. But the proceeding having been initiated under Section no, the Magistrate before whom it was initiated ought to have himself disposed of it. The District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to dispose of it.
4. On this ground the District Magistrate's order must be quashed and the proceedings sent back to the Magistrate, First Class, to be dealt with and disposed of according to law.