Skip to content


Churamani Chaturvedi Vs. Emperor - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1928All402; 110Ind.Cas.215
AppellantChuramani Chaturvedi
RespondentEmperor
Excerpt:
- - 4. i am clearly of opinion that the order in question comes within the purview of section 435, and sitting on the revisional side i have power to set aside the order contrary to law......made by the sub-inspector under sub-sections (1) or (3) of that section. the magistrate did not grant the application but ordered it to be filed. the revision to the sessions judge was from this order which amounted to a refusal to grant the application. the magistrate in his explanation admits that there seems to have been some mistake on his part or that of his reader, which he regretted. possibly the application was misunderstood as the magistrate suggests2. the right to apply for copies is now embodied in the section of the code mentioned above. the order directing it to be filed was tantamount to refusing to grant the copies. this order cannot be treated, as an extrajudicial or executive order, when a statutory duty is cast upon the magistrate to grant the application. the order.....
Judgment:

Sulaiman, Ag. C.J.

1. This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Mainpuri from an order refusing to grant a copy under Sub-section 5 of Section 165 of the new Criminal P. C, The house of Churamani Chaturvedi was searched by a Sub-Inspector of Police in connexion with some theft cases and the final report of the police was submitted to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who accepted it. Next day Chaturvedi made an application to the Magistrate for being supplied with copies of any record made by the Sub-Inspector under Sub-sections (1) or (3) of that section. The Magistrate did not grant the application but ordered it to be filed. The revision to the Sessions Judge was from this order which amounted to a refusal to grant the application. The Magistrate in his explanation admits that there seems to have been some mistake on his part or that of his reader, which he regretted. Possibly the application was misunderstood as the Magistrate suggests

2. The right to apply for copies is now embodied in the section of the Code mentioned above. The order directing it to be filed was tantamount to refusing to grant the copies. This order cannot be treated, as an extrajudicial or executive order, when a statutory duty is cast upon the Magistrate to grant the application. The order was actually in disregard of the specific provisions of the law and was therefore illegal.

3. Section 435 of the Code is very comprehensive and gives power to the High Court to examine the record of proceeding before any inferior criminal Court for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order recorded or passed as to the regularity of any such proceeding.

4. I am clearly of opinion that the order in question comes within the purview of Section 435, and sitting on the revisional side I have power to set aside the order contrary to law.

5. I accordingly accept this reference and set aside the order, dated 29th September 1927, and direct that the application be restored to its original number and disposed of according to law.


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