Skip to content


Emperor Vs. W. C. Keymer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1914)ILR36All53
AppellantEmperor
RespondentW. C. Keymer
Excerpt:
.....section 437 - accused once tried and discharged--fresh inquiry into the same charge an a second complaint--jurisdiction. - 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..........police with reference to an item of rs. 182, which she had paid to keymer in connection with the purchase of a motor car and which she charged him with criminally misappropriating. the case was re-instated in the court of the same magistrate who had already passed the order of discharge as stated above. in this second case he has taken some evidence on behalf of the prosecution and framed a charge. this court was then moved in revision on the ground that it was not open to the magistrate having once discharged the accused, to again inquire into the same charge on a second complaint. it seems to us that we are bound by the ruling in queen-empress v. umedan (1). that ruling completely covers the facts of this case, and it has been followed more than once in this court. that, no doubt,.....
Judgment:

Pramada Charan Banerji and Ryves, JJ.

1. Mrs. Williams lodged a complaint against W. C. Keymer, charging him with several offences in connection with the purchase of a phaeton and a motor car. The case was tried at length by a magistrate of the first class, who, on the 17th of March, 1913, passed an order of discharge on all the (1) Weekly Notes, 1895, p. 86. charges. Subsequently Mrs. Williams complained to the police with reference to an item of Rs. 182, which she had paid to Keymer in connection with the purchase of a motor car and which she charged him with criminally misappropriating. The case was re-instated in the court of the same magistrate who had already passed the order of discharge as stated above. In this second case he has taken some evidence on behalf of the prosecution and framed a charge. This court was then moved in revision on the ground that it was not open to the Magistrate having once discharged the accused, to again inquire into the same charge on a second complaint. It seems to us that we are bound by the ruling in Queen-Empress v. Umedan (1). That ruling completely covers the facts of this case, and it has been followed more than once in this Court. That, no doubt, was a case of the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in our opinion the principle is the same and applies to this present case. We think, therefore, that the Magistrate had jurisdiction. We think, however, that the more appropriate tribunal to decide this case is a civil court. The application is rejected. With these observations we direct the record to be returned for disposal.


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