Skip to content


Emperor Vs. Jagmohan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.812
AppellantEmperor
RespondentJagmohan and ors.
Excerpt:
penal code (art xlv of 1860), section 211 - false charge before a police officer--magistrate's jurisdiction--commitment to sessions bad. - - by reason of this ruling the case against the present accused is one that was well within the jurisdiction of the magistrate. 414 is also similar to the present case and the law on the point is clearly set forth in the judgment therein. the commitment in the present case having been made on the sole ground that the offence is one within paragraph 2 of section 211 of the penal code, the magistrate has clearly committed an error of law......and ram bharuse to the court of sessions for trial of an offence under section 211 of the indian penal code should be quashed. the case against the two is that they gave false information to the police that certain persons had committed murder. the case proceeded no further than the police enquiry. they were then charged before the magistrate with the present offence under section 211 of the penal code. the magistrate has committed them for trial, because in his opinion the offence is one falling under paragraph 2 of section 211. this is the sole ground given for the commitment. under the ruling reported in queen-empress v. bisheshar 16 a. 124 the offence charged against the present accused is one which falls within the first paragraph of section 211 of the indian penal code. this.....
Judgment:

Tudball, J.

1. This is a reference made by the learned Sessions Judge of Allahabad, recommending that the commitment made of the accused Jagmohan and Ram Bharuse to the Court of Sessions for trial of an offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code should be quashed. The case against the two is that they gave false information to the police that certain persons had committed murder. The case proceeded no further than the police enquiry. They were then charged before the Magistrate with the present offence under Section 211 of the Penal Code. The Magistrate has committed them for trial, because in his opinion the offence is one falling under paragraph 2 of Section 211. This is the sole ground given for the commitment. Under the ruling reported in Queen-Empress v. Bisheshar 16 A. 124 the offence charged against the present accused is one which falls within the first paragraph of Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court has differed on the point from the rulings of the other High Courts of India. By reason of this ruling the case against the present accused is one that was well within the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The maximum term of imprisonment for the offence is only two years; the fine, of course, is not limited. The Magistrate does not give as the ground of commitment that the fine or sentence which he can impose will not be adequate to meet the ends of justice. The case is very similar to the case of Emperor v. Dharam Singh A.W.N. (1906) 28; 3 A.L.J. 14; 3 Cr. L.J. 94; 1 M.L.T. 61 in which the commitment was quashed on the ground now suggested by the learned Sessions Judge. The case of Queen-Empress v. Kayemullah Mandal 24 C. 429; 1 C.W.N. 414 is also similar to the present case and the law on the point is clearly set forth in the judgment therein. The commitment in the present case having been made on the sole ground that the offence is one within paragraph 2 of Section 211 of the Penal Code, the Magistrate has clearly committed an error of law. The commitment is, therefore, wrong. It would be sheer waste of time if such cases were committed to the Court of Sessions. I accordingly quash the commitment and direct that the Magistrate do proceed with the trial of the case according to law.


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