Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Ram Dei and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All350
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentRam Dei and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. xlv of 1860 (indian penal code), sections 366, 368-criminal procedure code, section 180--offences committed in different districts in the course of the same transaction--commitment where to be made. - .....which we have indicated as against the other accused, could, by reason of section 180 of the code of criminal procedure, have been tried in the same court. we are not prepared to follow the decision of the madras high court in reg. v. samia kaundan i.l.r. 1 mad. 173, and we are not aware that it-has ever been followed in any other case, nor are we prepared to follow the procedure which was acted on by this court in queen-empress v surja weekly notes 1883 p. 164. in our opinion the procedure followed by the bombay high court in queen-empress v. thaku i.l.r. 8 bom. 312, is correct. we do not set aside the commitment as in our opinion the decisions in queen-empress v. james ingle i.l.r. 16 bom. 200 and queen-empress v. abbi reddi i.l.r. 17 mad. 402 are correct; but following the.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.

1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. Ram Dei, Chajju, Piru and Kamar were committed by the Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar to the Court of Session at Saharanpur. From what we are going to say it must not be presumed that we have prejudged the case against these persons. This commitment as against Ram Dei was for the offence punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, and as to the others for abetment of the offence punishable under Section 366 in the district of Bijnor, and that Chajju and Piru took part with her in moving the girl about that district and ultimately into Muzaffarnagar, and that in Muzaffarnagar they were joined by Kamar, who, proceeded to take charge of the girl while the other three accused returned to Bijnor. If the case against these persons is true, Ram Dei committed the offence under Section 366 in Bijnor, and possibly the other three prisoners committed the offence punishahle under Section 368 in Muzaffarnagar, Chajju and Piru also possibly having committed the offence punishable under that section in Bijnor. Under these circumstances the proper Court for a committal to have been made to was the Court for the trial of Sessions cases arising in Bijnor. The main charge against Ram Dei was triable in that Court, that Court having local jurisdiction, and the offences for which they were committed, which we have indicated as against the other accused, could, by reason of Section 180 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been tried in the same Court. We are not prepared to follow the decision of the Madras High Court in Reg. v. Samia Kaundan I.L.R. 1 Mad. 173, and we are not aware that it-has ever been followed in any other case, nor are we prepared to follow the procedure which was acted on by this Court in Queen-Empress v Surja Weekly Notes 1883 p. 164. In our opinion the procedure followed by the Bombay High Court in Queen-Empress v. Thaku I.L.R. 8 Bom. 312, is correct. We do not set aside the commitment as in our opinion the decisions in Queen-Empress v. James Ingle I.L.R. 16 Bom. 200 and Queen-Empress v. Abbi Reddi I.L.R. 17 Mad. 402 are correct; but following the procedure adopted by the High Court at Bombay in Queen-Empress v. Thaku I.L.R. 8 Bom. 312, we transfer the trial of the persons accused in this case to the Court of Session of Moradabad.


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