Skip to content


In Re: Maruti Vithu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberCriminal Reference No. 86 of 1924
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom247; (1925)27BOMLR350; 87Ind.Cas.596
AppellantIn Re: Maruti Vithu
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code act v of 1898), section 435, 345 - district magistrate- galling for record from a magistrate to transfer it to another-compounding of offence-former magistrate cannot record composition and acquit accused.;where a district magistrate calls for the papers in a case, under section 435 of the 0 criminal procedure code, with a view to withdraw the case from one magistrate and refer it for trial to another, the jurisdiction of the former magistrate to deal with the case ceases after the order calling for the papers is made. such magistrate has, thereafter, no jurisdiction to record a composition of the offence and acquit the accused under section 345 of the code. - .....july 2, 1.924, against two accused of various compound able offences. on july 15, 1924, the district magistrate in revision called for the papers, under section 435 of the criminal procedure code, with a view to withdraw the case from the first class magistrate and refer it for trial to another magistrate. as a matter of fact he did so order on august 15. but in the meanwhile on july 31, the magistrate recorded a composition of the offence and acquitted the accused under section 345, criminal procedure code.2. the district magistrate refers the case to us on the ground that the jurisdiction of the first class magistrate mr. deshpande ceased after the order had been made calling for the papers. we think the contention of the district magistrate is correct. when the order was made.....
Judgment:

Pratt, J.

1. The complainant filed a complaint July 2, 1.924, against two accused of various compound able offences. On July 15, 1924, the District Magistrate in revision called for the papers, under Section 435 of the Criminal Procedure Code, with a view to withdraw the case from the First Class Magistrate and refer it for trial to another Magistrate. As a matter of fact he did so order on August 15. But in the meanwhile on July 31, the Magistrate recorded a composition of the offence and acquitted the accused under Section 345, Criminal Procedure Code.

2. The District Magistrate refers the case to us on the ground that the jurisdiction of the First Class Magistrate Mr. Deshpande ceased after the order had been made calling for the papers. We think the contention of the District Magistrate is correct. When the order was made calling for the record and proceedings with a view to withdrawing the case and transferring it to another Magistrate the case was no longer on the file of the Magistrate and his jurisdiction was suspended. We, therefore, think that the order of acquittal made on July 31 is void and of no effect.

3. We, therefore, return the record and proceedings with a direction that the case should now proceed before the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at Nasik to whom it was referred by the District Magistrate. This is of course without prejudice to the rights of the parties to effect a fresh composition before that Magistrate.


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