Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Julua and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1920)ILR42All202; 55Ind.Cas.465
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJulua and anr.
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), sections 248, 345 - cattle trespass act (i of 1871), section 24, offence under, whether compoundable--penal code (act xlv of 1860), section 323, offence under, charged with offence under cattle trespass act--compromise, effect of--acquittal. - - i of 1871, so far as the particular matter under reference is concerned i have come to the conclusion that the magistrate, although his procedure may not have been perfectly regular, was substantially right and that the interference of this court is not called for the learned sessions judge is of course right in pointing out that an offence under section 24 of act no......of criminal procedure. a case under that section would, however, be a summons case and would result in an order of acquittal if no evidence were produced on which the court could find the accused guilty. in the present case the complainant entered into a compromise with the two accused julua and mulua in respect of whom this reference has been made. the compromise involved the compounding of the offence of causing simple hurt under section 323 of the indian penal code, and the magistrate was entitled to deal with it as withdrawal of the complaint in respect of the alleged offence under the cattle trespass act. limiting himself to a consideration of that offence only, he had jurisdiction to acquit the accused under the provisions of section 248 of the code of criminal procedure if he saw.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. The order of the learned Sessions Judge has been carelessly drafted. The references to sections, 21 and 30 of the Cattle Trespass Act (Act No. I of 1871) are incorrect and have caused me some trouble. The actual complaint before the Magistrate was one of causing hurt coupled with the forcible rescue of cattle, punishable under Section 24 of Act No. I of 1871, So far as the particular matter under reference is concerned I have come to the conclusion that the Magistrate, although his procedure may not have been perfectly regular, was substantially right and that the interference of this Court is not called for The learned Sessions Judge is of course right in pointing out that an offence under Section 24 of Act No. I of 1871 is not compound-able under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A case under that section would, however, be a summons case and would result in an order of acquittal if no evidence were produced on which the court could find the accused guilty. In the present case the complainant entered into a compromise with the two accused Julua and Mulua in respect of whom this reference has been made. The compromise involved the compounding of the offence of causing simple hurt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and the Magistrate was entitled to deal with it as withdrawal of the complaint in respect of the alleged offence under the Cattle Trespass Act. Limiting himself to a consideration of that offence only, he had jurisdiction to acquit the accused under the provisions of Section 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he saw sufficient reason for doing so. I am not disposed to interfere and I order that the record be returned.


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