Skip to content


K.S. Rashid Ahmad Vs. S.F. Rich - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1931All366
AppellantK.S. Rashid Ahmad
RespondentS.F. Rich
Excerpt:
.....down principles for determining syllabi, prescribes text books, etc. the cantonment board does not discharge any of such duties nor is there any other board or body under the cantonments act discharging any such duties. the duties of the cantonment board are laid down in section 62 and amongst others, clause (xiv) lays down the duties of establishing and maintaining or assisting primary schools only. the cantonment board is not required to enter into the area of secondary education. therefore, 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. that being the position, it is not possible to accept it to be a recognised school for being a private school under the act. for the..........it is laid down that the magistrate inquiring into, or trying, a case shall, if he does not discharge the accused under section 209 or section 253, as the case may be, commit the case for trial to the court of session. this section appears to me to take away from the magistrate the powers given him under section 213, (2) criminal p.c., in cases which are to be tried under the special provisions of ch. 33 of that code. the same view was expressed by dalai j., in the case reported in emperor v. shankar singh : air1929all84 , but that case cannot be taken as an authority because, in so far as the observations of the learned judge referred to a european british subject, they were obiter. thus as far as i know there is no authority to guide the court in this matter. but the words of.....
Judgment:

Pullan, J.

1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Meerut asking this Court to set aside the order of discharge passed by a Magistrate of the Fist Class in the case of one Mr. S. F. Rich who had been charged with offences under Sections 409 and 420, I. P.C. This Mr. Rich claimed to be tried as a European British subject under the special-provisions of Ch. 33, Criminal P.C. After he had made that claim and after an order had been passed under Section 443, directing that he should be tried under those special provisions a charge was framed against him by the Magistrate. The powers of a Magistrate when an order has been passed under Section 443 of the Code are strictly limited by Section 446. In that section it is laid down that the Magistrate inquiring into, or trying, a case shall, if he does not discharge the accused under Section 209 or Section 253, as the case may be, commit the case for trial to the Court of Session. This section appears to me to take away from the Magistrate the powers given him under Section 213, (2) Criminal P.C., in cases which are to be tried under the special provisions of Ch. 33 of that Code. The same view was expressed by Dalai J., in the case reported in Emperor v. Shankar Singh : AIR1929All84 , but that case cannot be taken as an authority because, in so far as the observations of the learned Judge referred to a European British subject, they were obiter. Thus as far as I know there is no authority to guide the Court in this matter. But the words of Section 446 are, in my opinion, sufficiently clear. It has bean argued before me that on this interpretation of the Code a person who has claimed a right to be tried as a European British subject has forfeited another valuable right, namely a right to have a charge against him cancelled if in the opinion of the Magistrate there is not a sufficient case to justify a commitment. This may be so, but whatever may have been the intention of the legislature in framing Section 446, I am satisfied that the effect of that section is to debar a Magistrate from cancelling a charge which has once been framed against a person who has claimed to be tried under the provisions of Oh. 33, as a European British subject, and whose claim to be so tried has been upheld by a competent Court under Section 443 of the Code. I accept this reference, set aside the order of discharge made by the Magistrate and direct that the Magistrate or his successor-in-office shall commit this case to the Sessions.


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