Skip to content


In Re: Holibasappa Pareppa Sangoli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Application No. 373 of 1920
Judge
Reported inAIR1921Bom394; (1921)23BOMLR357; 61Ind.Cas.63
AppellantIn Re: Holibasappa Pareppa Sangoli
Excerpt:
practice (criminal)-magistrate-remarks against stranger.;it is very undesirable that a judge or a magistrate should make remarks which are prejudicial to the character of a person who is neither a party nor a witness in the proceeding before him and who has therefore, no opportunity of giving an explanation or defending himself against the remarks made by the court. - section 3: [s.b. mhase, d.s. bhosale & a.s. oka, jj] offences of atrocities - complaint under held, merely because the caste of the accused is not mentioned in the fir stating whether he belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, it cannot be a ground for quashing the complaint. after ascertaining the facts during he course of investigation it is always open to the investigating officer to record tht the accused either.....norman macleod, kt., c.j.1. in certain proceedings before mr. nesarikar, sub-divisional magistrate, belgaum, in the case of imperator v. gurpadawa certain remarks were made by the magistrate prejudicial to the petitioner who was not a party to the proceeding nor a witness in the case. the petitioner has asked us to express an opinion with regard to those remarks. we confine ourselves to saying that it is very undesirable that a judge or a magistrate should make remarks which are prejudicial to the character of a person who is neither a party nor a witness in the proceeding before him, and who has, therefore, no opportunity of giving an explanation or defending himself against the remarks made by the court. that is a principle which has more than once been laid down by the courts.
Judgment:

Norman Macleod, Kt., C.J.

1. In certain proceedings before Mr. Nesarikar, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Belgaum, in the case of Imperator v. Gurpadawa certain remarks were made by the Magistrate prejudicial to the petitioner who was not a party to the proceeding nor a witness in the case. The petitioner has asked us to express an opinion with regard to those remarks. We confine ourselves to saying that it is very undesirable that a Judge or a Magistrate should make remarks which are prejudicial to the character of a person who is neither a party nor a witness in the proceeding before him, and who has, therefore, no opportunity of giving an explanation or defending himself against the remarks made by the Court. That is a principle which has more than once been laid down by the Courts.


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