Skip to content


Emperor Vs. John Francis Lobo - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case Number Criminal Reference No. 38 of 1916
Judge
Reported inAIR1916Bom159(1); (1916)18BOMLR796; 36Ind.Cas.577
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJohn Francis Lobo
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 435, 438 - reference to high court-district magistrate-decision by sessions judge.;a district magistrate has no power, under sections 435 and 438 of the criminal procedure code, to make a reference to the high court questioning the propriety of a judgment of the sessions judge.;queen-empress v. karamdi (1895) i.l.r. 23 cal. 250, followed. - - we are quite satisfied from a perusal of sections 435, 437 and 438 of the criminal procedure code that that code emphatically does not contemplate a reference of this kind, i only add that if we encourage references of this kind, it would open up an alarming vista of undesirable possibilities......interference in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. we accordingly direct the record and proceedings to be returned.heaton, j.4. i entirely agree. we are quite satisfied from a perusal of sections 435, 437 and 438 of the criminal procedure code that that code emphatically does not contemplate a reference of this kind, i only add that if we encourage references of this kind, it would open up an alarming vista of undesirable possibilities.
Judgment:

Beaman, J.

1. In my opinion this reference is entirely without jurisdiction and of a kind that ought to be severely discouraged. It is no part of the business of District Magistrates to criticize the judicial decisions of Sessions Judges. The point has been considered in exactly similar circumstances in the Calcutta High Court (Queen-Empress v. Karamdi I.L.R. (1895) Cal. 250 and with the conclusion arrived at by those learned Judges I entirely concur.

2. Quite apart from that, the case was first investigated and very thoroughly investigated by a Magistrate who discharged the accused. It was then again fully considered by the Sessions Judge in February 1916 who came to the same conclusion as the Magistrate. This concurrent finding is really a finding of fact, being merely as to the degree of care and prudence exercised by the accused. Four months later the District Magistrate makes this reference to the High Court.

3. In these circumstances we do not think that this is a proper case for interference in the exercise of our revisional jurisdiction. We accordingly direct the record and proceedings to be returned.

Heaton, J.

4. I entirely agree. We are quite satisfied from a perusal of Sections 435, 437 and 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code that that Code emphatically does not contemplate a reference of this kind, I only add that if we encourage references of this kind, it would open up an alarming vista of undesirable possibilities.


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