Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Gulam Ahmed Ali Saheb - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application for Revision No. 383 of 1912
Judge
Reported in(1913)15BOMLR104
AppellantEmperor
RespondentGulam Ahmed Ali Saheb
DispositionPetition allowed
Excerpt:
.....of accused for false evidence-appeal heard by the same judge as sessions judge-competency to hear appeal-penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 193.;a district judge gave sanction for the prosecution of the accused on a charge triable under section 193 of the indian penal code. the accused was tried for the offence and convicted. his appeal against the conviction and sentence came up before the same judge in his capacity as sessions judge. the accused applied for transfer of the appeal to another court:-;that the sessions judge was legally competent to hear and dispose of the appeal; for, the question before him when he was moved to sanction the prosecution was a totally different question from that which would present itself when the appeal would be argued.;empress v. gaspar..........district. application being made to mr. boyd for the transfer of the appeal to another court, the learned judge declined to move in the matter and relied upon this court's decision in empress v. caspar d'silva i.l.r. (1882) bom. 479, which was followed by the calcutta high court in queen-empress v. sarat chundra rakhit i.lr. (1889) cal. 766. we think that the learned judge was right, and that the cases cited by him are good authority for the proposition that he as sessions judge is legally competent to hear and dispose of this appeal. nor for ourselves do we see any reason at present why he should not do so. the question before him when he was moved to sanction the prosecution was a totally different question from that which will present itself when the appeal is argued. we think,.....
Judgment:

Batchelor, J.

1. In this case the District Judge, Mr. Boyd, acting as District Judge, gave sanction for the prosecution of the present petitioner on a charge triable under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has been tried for that offence and has been convicted of it. He has preferred an appeal against the conviction and the appeal is now pending before Mr. Boyd in his capacity as Sessions Judge of the District. Application being made to Mr. Boyd for the transfer of the appeal to another Court, the learned Judge declined to move in the matter and relied upon this Court's decision in Empress v. Caspar D'Silva I.L.R. (1882) Bom. 479, which was followed by the Calcutta High Court in Queen-Empress v. Sarat Chundra Rakhit I.LR. (1889) Cal. 766. We think that the learned Judge was right, and that the cases cited by him are good authority for the proposition that he as Sessions Judge is legally competent to hear and dispose of this appeal. Nor for ourselves do we see any reason at present why he should not do so. The question before him when he was moved to sanction the prosecution was a totally different question from that which will present itself when the appeal is argued. We think, therefore, that Mr. Boyd should hear and decide the appeal, unless he himself feels embarrassed in the matter by reason of his former order. In case he is conscious of any such embarrassment he will no doubt communicate with this Court when the requisite action can be taken. At present we see no reason to interfere, and we discharge the Rule.


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