Skip to content


Jhingai Singh Vs. Ram Partap - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1909)ILR31All150; 1Ind.Cas.762
AppellantJhingai Singh
RespondentRam Partap
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 145 and 435 - statute 24 and 25 vict., cap. civ, section 15--order under section 145, criminal procedure code--revision--powers of high court. - - 1. this is an application in revision asking this court to call for the record and to revise an order passed under section 145 of the code of criminal procedure on the ground that the magistrate who passed the order complained of refused to uphold an order passed by the civil court and decided the question before him contrary to that order......of the indian high courts act, 1861. it has not been shown to me that the proceedings before the learned magistrate were not proceedings under chapter xii of the code or that he was not duly empowered to act under that chapter. according to the contention of the learned advocate it was after being properly seised of the case that the learned magistrate went out of his way, passed an order which he had no jurisdiction to pass, and that by it the learned advocate's client has been debarred from all remedy and deprived of the fruits of the case won by him in the civil court. this may or may not be so. the fact remains that section 435 expressly excepts records of proceedings under chapter xii, and i know of no other act or statute which confers upon this court the power of sending for.....
Judgment:

George Knox, J.

1. This is an application in revision asking this Court to call for the record and to revise an order passed under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that the magistrate who passed the order complained of refused to uphold an order passed by the Civil Court and decided the question before him contrary to that order. I have considered the following cases referred to by the learned advocate for the applicant: Daulat Koer v. Rameswari Koeri (1899) I.L.R. 26 Calc. 625 In re Pandurang Govind (1900) I.L.R. 24 Bom. 527 and Baldeo Baksh Singh v. Raj Ballam Singh (1903) 2 A.L.J.R. 274 decided by this Court on 11th December 1903. But it has already been held by a Bench of the Court in Maharaj Tewari v. Har Charan Rai (1903) I.L.R. 26 All. 144 that as the law at present stands where the proceedings below are in intention, in form and in fact proceedings under chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure by a magistrate duly empowered to act under that chapter, this Court has no power to send for those proceedings either under the Code or under Section 15 of the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. It has not been shown to me that the proceedings before the learned magistrate were not proceedings under chapter XII of the Code or that he was not duly empowered to act under that chapter. According to the contention of the learned advocate it was after being properly seised of the case that the learned magistrate went out of his way, passed an order which he had no jurisdiction to pass, and that by it the learned advocate's client has been debarred from all remedy and deprived of the fruits of the case won by him in the Civil Court. This may or may not be so. The fact remains that Section 435 expressly excepts records of proceedings under chapter XII, and I know of no other Act or Statute which confers upon this Court the power of sending for such proceedings. The application is dismissed.


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