Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Dulla and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1923)ILR45All58; 74Ind.Cas.1054
AppellantEmperor
RespondentDulla and ors.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 247 and 403 - autrefois acquit--acquittal under section 247 a bar to further proceedings. - 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..........it appears that three persons were acquitted by an honorary magistrate under section 247 of the criminal procedure code because on the day fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant did not appear. the complainant filed another complaint charging the same accused with having committed the same offence on the same allegations of fact, before the same magistrate. he referred the point as to whether having regard to section 403 of the criminal procedure code he could try the case again and, having been directed to do so by the sub-divisional officer, issued proceedings against the accused. the learned district magistrate has referred the case to this court recommending that further proceedings be quashed on the ground that under section 403 of the criminal procedure code the.....
Judgment:

Ryves, J.

1. This is a reference by the learned District Magistrate of Farrukhabad. It appears that three persons were acquitted by an Honorary Magistrate under Section 247 of the Criminal Procedure Code because on the day fixed for the hearing of the case the complainant did not appear. The complainant filed another complaint charging the same accused with having committed the same offence on the same allegations of fact, before the same Magistrate. He referred the point as to whether having regard to Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code he could try the case again and, having been directed to do so by the Sub-Divisional Officer, issued proceedings against the accused. The learned District Magistrate has referred the case to this Court recommending that further proceedings be quashed on the ground that under Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code the accused persons cannot be again tried. This was the view taken by this Court in Empress v. Bhawani Prasad Weekly Notes, 1885 p. 43. The same view was taken in the case of Panchu Singh v. Umor Mahomed Sheikh (1899) 4 C.W.N. 346 and In the matter of Guggilapu Paddaya of Palakot (1910) I.L.R., 31 Mad., 253. Following these decisions I accept the reference and direct that the papers be returned.


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