Skip to content


Abdul Ghafur and anr. Vs. Raza Husain - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All267
AppellantAbdul Ghafur and anr.
RespondentRaza Husain
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, section 476 - preliminary inquiry--revision. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain appeals filed under section 9 by the employees working in schools which are established and administered by the cantonment board...........in the exercise of its revisional powers on the criminal side under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure to interfere with such orders. the full bench ruling in the case referred to is binding upon me. the learned vakil for the applicants prays that permission may be given to him to alter the application into a civil revision, inasmuch as the order passed by the assistant colleotor of the first class is based on the statements of the witnesses who were not allowed to be cross-examined by the applicants. in chota sadoo peadah v. bhoobun chuckerbutty (1868) 9 w.r. c.r. 3 it was laid down that the preliminary inquiry need not be held in the presence of the accused, and in queen-empress v. matabadal (1893) i.l.r. 15 all. 392 it was ruled that when a magistrate takes.....
Judgment:

Karamat Husain, J.

1. In this case an Assistant Collector of first class acting under Section 476, Criminal Procedure Code, directed the applicants to be prosecuted under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants appealed to the learned District Judge of Banda, for revoking the sanction. The application was rejected by the learned District Judge and the order of the Assistant Collector was confirmed. The applicants came to this Court in revision on the criminal side. The learned vakil for the opposite party, relying on the Full Bench ruling of this Court In the matter of the petition of Bhup Kunwar (1903) I.L.R., 26 All, 249 contends that the High Court has no jurisdiction, in the exercise of its revisional powers on the criminal side under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to interfere with such orders. The Full Bench ruling in the case referred to is binding upon me. The learned vakil for the applicants prays that permission may be given to him to alter the application into a civil revision, inasmuch as the order passed by the Assistant Colleotor of the first class is based on the statements of the witnesses who were not allowed to be cross-examined by the applicants. In Chota Sadoo Peadah v. Bhoobun Chuckerbutty (1868) 9 W.R. C.R. 3 it was laid down that the preliminary inquiry need not be held in the presence of the accused, and in Queen-Empress v. Matabadal (1893) I.L.R. 15 All. 392 it was ruled that when a Magistrate takes action under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not necessary to the validity of his order that he should hold a preliminary inquiry. I am, therefore, of opinion that the Magistrate in refusing to give the applicants an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses did not act in the exercise of his jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. For the above reasons, I reject the application.


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