Skip to content


Queen-empress Vs. Mutasaddi Lal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR21All107
AppellantQueen-empress
RespondentMutasaddi Lal
Excerpt:
criminal procedure code, sections 110, 119 - security for good behaviour--power to order further inquiry--accused person--criminal procedure code, section 437. - - 1. the applicant was called upon by a magistrate to furnish security for good behaviour......holding proceedings under chapter viii of the code of criminal procedure, the magistrate being of opinion that sufficient reasons had not been made out for ordering the applicant to give security, discharged him under section 199 of the code. the district magistrate has ordered further inquiry into the matter, purporting to act under sectio.n 437. it is urged that under that section the magistrate of the district was not competent to order further inquiry, as the applicant was not an accused person' within the meaning of that section. the code of criminal procedure contains no definition of an ' accused person,' but it was held by the bombay high court in queen-empress v. mona puna (1892) i.l.r. 16 bom. 661, that the term 'accused' means 'a person over whom a magistrate or other.....
Judgment:

Banerji, J.

1. The applicant was called upon by a Magistrate to furnish security for good behaviour. After holding proceedings under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate being of opinion that sufficient reasons had not been made out for ordering the applicant to give security, discharged him under Section 199 of the Code. The District Magistrate has ordered further inquiry into the matter, purporting to act under sectio.n 437. It is urged that under that section the Magistrate of the District was not competent to order further inquiry, as the applicant was not an accused person' within the meaning of that section. The Code of Criminal Procedure contains no definition of an ' accused person,' but it was held by the Bombay High Court in Queen-Empress v. Mona Puna (1892) I.L.R. 16 Bom. 661, that the term 'accused' means 'a person over whom a Magistrate or other Court is exercising jurisdiction.' The same view was held by the Calcutta High Court in Jhoja Singh v. Queen-Empress (1896) I.L.R. 23 Cal. 493. I see no reason to put a different interpretation on the words ' an accused person ' in Section 437. The District Magistrate was therefore competent to order further inquiry, and this application is not sustainable. I dismiss the application.


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