Skip to content


Zabar Singh and ors. Vs. Ram Sarup - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All477; 85Ind.Cas.726
AppellantZabar Singh and ors.
RespondentRam Sarup
Excerpt:
- .....the casa had been falsely brought against them on account of some revenue litigation. the learned deputy magistrate heard the entire evidence that was adduced before him, and he says 'the witnesses have differed materially from each other on several points in cross-examination, and they have left a general impression on my mind that the evidence is unworthy of credit.3. the learned deputy magistrate having discharged the applicants, the opposite-party went up to the district magistrate who has ordered a further enquiry into the case.4. the question is whether this order of further enquiry was right and justified in the circumstances of the case. the leading case on the point is that of queen emperor v. chotu (1886) 9 all. 52. there, it was laid down in effect that, where the whole.....
Judgment:

Mukerji, J.

1. This is an application to revise an order of the learned District Magistrate of Meerut ordering a further inquiry into the case started by one Ram Sarup against the applicants.

2. It appears that Ram Sarup filed a complaint that the applicants in the course of the night out and removed the crops which he had grown on his field. The accused parsons stated in defence that they did not do the act attributed to them, and urged that the casa had been falsely brought against them on account of some revenue litigation. The learned Deputy Magistrate heard the entire evidence that was adduced before him, and he says 'the witnesses have differed materially from each other on several points in cross-examination, and they have left a general impression on my mind that the evidence is unworthy of credit.

3. The learned Deputy Magistrate having discharged the applicants, the opposite-party went up to the District Magistrate who has ordered a further enquiry into the case.

4. The question is whether this order of further enquiry was right and justified in the circumstances of the case. The leading case on the point is that of Queen Emperor v. Chotu (1886) 9 All. 52. There, it was laid down in effect that, where the whole evidence has been heard by a Magistrate hearing the case and the evidence has been disbelieved, a revising authority would not rightly interfere. It was pointed out that the provisions of the (old) Section 437 were meant to apply to cases where there had been some misinterpretation of the law, or principle of law, and there was, otherwise, a miscarriage of justice.

5. It has been repeatedly held in this Court that, where on the evidence a revising authority comes to a different conclusion from the Court that hears the evidence, a further enquiry under Section 437 (old) and Section 436 (new), should not be ordered. I have read both the judgments and I am of opinion that it was not a fit case in which a further enquiry should have bean ordered, The whole evidence was recorded by the learned Deputy Magistrate, and there was really nothing further to be done in the case.

6. I set aside the order of the learned District Magistrate, dated the 11th of July, 1924.


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