Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Nanji Samal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 61 of 1913
Judge
Reported inAIR1914Bom237; (1913)15BOMLR999
AppellantEmperor
RespondentNanji Samal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 213-magistrate-committing a case-reasons for committal-registration act (xvi of 1908), section 83 (2).;a magistrate duly empowered to try a case under section 83 (2) of the indian registration act, committed the case to the court of session without giving any reasons :-;that as the case was triable either by the magistrate himself or by the court of session, the magistrate was bound to record not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but also reasons for sending him to the court of session ; and that the failure to do so amounted to an illegality. - - there has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law......however give any reason why he should commit it rather than try it himself. the law requires that reasons for commitment shall be recorded (see s. 213 of the criminal procedure code). in a case of this kind where the trial may either be by the magistrate himself or by the court of session, i think that reasons for commitment must include not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but reasons for sending him before the court of session. there has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law. this no doubt would amount to no more than an irregularity if the case were one which plainly ought to be committed to the sessions. but where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregularity. it.....
Judgment:

Heaton, J.

1. In this case the Magistrate, as appears quite plainly from Clause 2 of Section 83 of the Registration Act, could have tried the case himself but he committed it to the Court of Session. He did not however give any reason why he should commit it rather than try it himself. The law requires that reasons for commitment shall be recorded (see S. 213 of the Criminal Procedure Code). In a case of this kind where the trial may either be by the Magistrate himself or by the Court of Session, I think that reasons for commitment must include not merely reasons for not discharging the accused, but reasons for sending him before the Court of Session. There has, therefore, been a failure to comply with the law. This no doubt would amount to no more than an irregularity if the case were one which plainly ought to be committed to the Sessions. But where, as appears here, the case is not one which ought to have been committed, then to commit without giving reasons is more than an irregularity. It is, it seems to me, an illegality.

2. For this reason I would quash the commitment and it follows the case will have to be disposed of by the Magistrate who committed it.


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