Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Umer-ud-din - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All317
AppellantEmperor
RespondentUmer-ud-din
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act no. v of 1898), section 403(1) - no complaint--order of acquittal--whether bar to a new trial. - 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..........no authority to institute the case and he ended his judgment with the words 'i therefore acquit the accused.' thereupon the husband, having obtained leave, came from burma and instituted a fresh complaint. in answer to this the applicant set up the previous acquittal. in my opinion the so-called acquittal is, under the circumstances, no bar to the trial of the present charge. the magistrate's previous finding amounted to this that there was no complaint before him of which he could take cognizance. if it were necessary i should have no hesitation in setting aside the previous so-called acquittal and directing the present trial to proceed. vide queen empress v. balwant (1886) i.l.r. 9 all. 135. but i do not think this is necessary and content myself with dismissing the application.
Judgment:

Aikman, J.

1. In my opinion no sufficient ground exists for interfering in this case. Mohammad Farookh, a soldier serving With his regiment in Burma, sent an intimation to the District Magistrate of Bijnor that he had authorised his brother to bring a complaint against the applicant, Umer-ud-din, for enticing away his (Mohammad Farookh's) wife. This charge against the accused was heard by a Magistrate. When evidence for both sides had been recorded, it struck the Magistrate that the husband's brother held no authority to institute the case and he ended his judgment with the words 'I therefore acquit the accused.' Thereupon the husband, having obtained leave, came from Burma and instituted a fresh complaint. In answer to this the applicant set up the previous acquittal. In my opinion the so-called acquittal is, under the circumstances, no bar to the trial of the present charge. The Magistrate's previous finding amounted to this that there was no complaint before him of which he could take cognizance. If it were necessary I should have no hesitation in setting aside the previous so-called acquittal and directing the present trial to proceed. Vide Queen Empress v. Balwant (1886) I.L.R. 9 All. 135. But I do not think this is necessary and content myself with dismissing the application.


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