Skip to content


Bohray Jugul Kishore Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All300; 108Ind.Cas.565
AppellantBohray Jugul Kishore
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
.....such boards. a private school has to be recognised by the state or the divisional board or by any officer authorised in that behalf. when this phrase namely: recognised by any officer authorised by the director or by any such boards, is included in the latter part of section 2(21), such boards will be of the level of the state board or the divisional board. the boards referred to in the definition of the word recognised means the boards which deal with education at levels other than that of the level at which primary schools are operating. thus for being recognised, the school has to be recognised by the board and therefore, it has to be operating at a higher level i.e., secondary level. section 2(21) of the act defines the term recognised. the last clause therein is by any of such..........in this case a notice by a magistrate was issued under section 133, criminal p.c., to one jugal kishore as trustee or manager of a temple to remove a certain alleged encroachment over a public drain. he applied in revision to the sessions judge but his application was rejected. he applied again in further revision to this court, and an order staying the carrying out of the order was issued by this court. meanwhile jugul kishore died. the case was postponed by this court in order to find out for certain that the trustee was dead and also to enable dr. vaish, who was the counsel of the deceased trustee, to find out the wishes of his successor-in-office.2. dr. vaish appears today and says it is a fact that jugul kishore is dead. he asks for postponement for the purposes of ascertaining.....
Judgment:

Ashworth, J.

1. In this case a notice by a Magistrate was issued under Section 133, Criminal P.C., to one Jugal Kishore as trustee or manager of a temple to remove a certain alleged encroachment over a public drain. He applied in revision to the Sessions Judge but his application was rejected. He applied again in further revision to this Court, and an order staying the carrying out of the order was issued by this Court. Meanwhile Jugul Kishore died. The case was postponed by this Court in order to find out for certain that the trustee was dead and also to enable Dr. Vaish, who was the counsel of the deceased trustee, to find out the wishes of his successor-in-office.

2. Dr. Vaish appears today and says it is a fact that Jugul Kishore is dead. He asks for postponement for the purposes of ascertaining the wishes of the successor-in-office as that successor has promised to come to Court today but has not yet come.

3. In my opinion this application in revision may be dismissed as no longer required. An order under Section 133, Criminal P.C., and any order under the subsequent sections is an order against a particular individual. When that individual dies, the order must be considered spent. If the Notified Area Committee find it necessary to issue another order against his successor-in-interest, they must take separate proceedings.

4. It is true that the order against the deceased trustee became absolute and that the Magistrate under Section 140(2) could have himself had the obstruction removed in the absence of any injunction by this Court. The Magistrate has not had the obstruction removed up to this day owing to pendency of proceedings in revision in this Court. If this application in revision is dismissed, it will follow that the injunction of this Court will cease. But I am of the opinion that as soon as a person against whom an order has been made under Ch. 10, Criminal Procedure Code dies, the order ceases to have further effect and a Magistrate would not be entitled to act under Section 140(2).

5. For the above reasons this application in revision is dismissed on the ground that the person making it has died. I hold that his successor-in-office has no locus standi. On the other hand I hold that successor-in-office is in no way bound by the order made against the deceased, nor can the Magistrate take any steps in pursuance of that order. A fresh order will have to be obtained against the successor-in-office.


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